So Mr. Titus considers himself a “respected constitutional scholar.” Obama makes the same claim.
I doubt that the Founders imagined that a child could be on a trip with his parents or that a parent could be in the service protecting America while being based in Germany or Japan, when they wrote about “natural born”.
But 0bama is a proven LIAR!
Indeed, Obama is also a constitutional scholar. Which is why on his fightthesmears website prior to the 2008 elections he claimed to be “native” born. He thought a majority of voters wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care that that wasn’t “natural” born. And he was right.
If he really had something of academic legal substance to say on the issue, he ought to be able to set it out in writing where it could be examined.
He, like many people here, lives in a dream world on this issue--if the issue ever gets to the United States Supreme Court, the Court will decide the case on a place of birth record.
Credentials? One of those issues where if you have them, it is kind like an argument about whose is longer. Although in Herb's case, he does have a fairly extensive paper academic record.
Since I also don't think he is playing with a full deck on the facts either, it probably doesn't add much to the debate to get into the discussion on his assumed record--I do agree that the paper birth record in Hawaii is conclusive--nothing on the record in Hawaii that proves zero was born there in August of 1961; nothing we have seen demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii on any other date either; in fact, no real hard record evidence of where he was born or who his parents were or much of anything else about him.
I suppose to be fair, his oral statements and approved published bio stating that he was born in Kenya would be admissible evidence; since I think there are significant reasons to believe he was not born there either, I view that evidence as significant only in that in a contested proceeding, it might be useful to shift the burden of proof to zero.
Fortunately, there are several helpful devices that help us decide which is the stronger of the two claims.
For instance, it would be important to compare the credentials of each of the two claimants, their experience and accomplishments. The article above is helpful in this regard.
One should also wonder what motive either may have to make the claim.
It might also be beneficial to examine and compare the credentials of those casual but qualified observers who may or may not agree with the claim of either.
There are more points, but I am in the middle of a late lunch.
That is two term president Obama.
Maybe republicans can keep out it’s candidates with one set of rules, while the democrats continue to elect Presidents of the United States with the rules that they and the rest of the Untied States follows.
Republicans can just voluntarily use their own rules in excluding candidates for the GOP, what republican needs a Ted Cruz when the party has Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.
Doesn’t matter. The founders wrote a great document but did not define “natural born citizen”. as a result NBC means whatever DC wants it to mean. These days they don’t really care as long as the candidate is a D. R’s are another matter. D’s will define it to suit their purposes.
Woulsn’t you like to see someone ask Obama a really tough constitutional question? ;^D