Replies

The papers by Gordon and Pryor focus on the eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth, because that was the question in doubt. They note that the eligibility of the native-born was already clear and settled, and there is no record of anyone disagreeing with those notes until people wanted to deny Obama’s eligibility.

BTW, if they both focus on "foreign-born citizens from birth" why do defenders of the current WH occupant, such as yourself, continually use them as references when, according to supporters, he was born in Hawaii?
It seems to me that their use as sources only further emphasizes the argument of critics.

philman_36 wrote:

"BTW, if they both focus on "foreign-born citizens from birth" why do defenders of the current WH occupant, such as yourself, continually use them as references when, according to supporters, he was born in Hawaii?"

For exactly the reasons I've explained over and over. They made entirely clear -- and no one rebutted them on it -- that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled. Here it is again, since you missed the point all the times before:

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

In our time there have been no papers in the American Legal Literature about whether native-born citizens qualify as Article II natural-citizens. That much was clear and settled long ago, so the literature on presidential eligibility simply pointed it out and no one disagreed.

Again: I'm wrong on that, please cite one 'birther' speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship. I've been doing this a while, so I know to expect a lot ducking, playing dumb, and tries to change the subject. One thing I've learned not to expect is a straight answer to that challenge. I'm not asking whether the issue was in doubt a hundred years ago. I'm not here considering illegal aliens. Please don't bother citing what Breck Long argued in 1916 about a candidate born before the 14'th Amendment. Just show me one current denier of Obama's eligibility who before 2008 argued that native-born citizenship was insufficient.