[greeneyes]

Who is this guy? He's gone from assertion to conclusion with no argument or evidence. The Constitution is not always as clear as the nose on your face. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. It takes diligent research sometimes to uncover the intended meaning and original understanding of the text, sometimes going back to English common law which was much of our framers point of reference.

The point is, the Constitution doesn't mean what somebody WANTS it to mean. It's meaning is found in the understanding of the text which, again, may be clear, but should be verified by looking at the historical context of the intent and understanding of the framers.

*********************************************************

Larry Klayman is the founder of JUDICIAL WATCH and FREEDOM WATCH. He is a strong advocate for ethics in government. His FOI requests during the Clinton years brought out lots of “dirt” that was never really reported by LSM.

Decades ago, when I was in school, I was taught that one must be born in the USA of citizen parents in order to be certain of eligibility to be president, and that was the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

However, I researched this issue extensively in 2008, long before the term “birhers” appeared. Legal scholars make decent arguments for both sides of this issue. A specific definitive case has never fully settled the issue, according to State Department guidance for US embassies regarding citizenship.

The issue about Obama being born in Hawaii, to me was more of a red herring than anything. The real issue was hiding in plain sight and admitted by Obama and team-His father was not a citizen.

Once elected, however, they could claim the people have spoken, and determined that having a foreigner for a parent should not be a dis qualifier. Courts will evade the issue, because they don't want to be seen overturning an election.

It worked.

[DiogenesLamp]

Once elected, however, they could claim the people have spoken, and determined that having a foreigner for a parent should not be a dis qualifier. Courts will evade the issue, because they don't want to be seen overturning an election.

And this is the salient point. I argue firstly, the courts do not know what is the correct meaning of the term. They can study law for decades without needing to know this, so most of them don't. Secondly, even if they knew it correctly, they would regard it as a legal technicality which isn't serious enough to warrant the overturning of an election. Thirdly, they are afraid to touch this because it will put them into a predicament which would demonstrates their previous incompetence.

The Supreme court has created a fake right to abortion. What's ignoring a two hundred year old technicality to them?