Do you like people insisting that the Constitution says things it doesn’t say?
For example: Do you think it would be a good thing for people here to make reams and reams of posts claiming that women are Constitutionally ineligible to be elected President?
You and I agree on a few things. So I must ask why you take issue with individuals expressing their interpretations of the Constitution and citing evidence that they believe supports said interpretations? Why not simply dispute their evidence and leave it at that?
The plain and simple truth is that without a ruling on Obama’s specific situation, his eligibility will always be in question with some. It is equally true that some will twist the meaning of the Constitution if doing so results in Obama being ineligible.
But when it gets right down to it, there is only one group whose NBC status cannot be questioned: born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. Federal law operates today on the assumption that statutory citizenship granted at birth is equivalent to NBC but acknowledges that without a judicial ruling on the matter uncertainty exists. If the federal government isn’t sure that its interpretation is correct, how can you be sure that yours is?
Do you like going overboard?