Replies

Your misinformed opinion only.

Uhm, actually no. You can believe whatever you want but until it is proven in a court of law I am right. I am not misinformed. I have read the arguments. I know what by right of blood and right of land means whether in English or Latin. However, there has never been a case which defines natural born by the Supreme Court, and since the 14th Amendment, you can't use the old citizenship cases.

I don't disagree that the birthers could in theory be correct. However, there is no court precedent. And there is ZERO PERCENT CHANCE the Supreme Court will take the case. And even if they do take the case, they will most likely side with Obama. The birth certificate is the motherload of fool's gold.

The birth certificate is the motherload of fool's gold.
And the media and people like you are the pushers. It isn't about his birth certificate as you well know, yet here you are pushing the meme despite the real issue being his status as a natural born citizen.
Deflection only works so long and the last sentence is the most oft remembered.

The 14th Amendment dealt specifically with former slaves who were being denied citizenship by some states, and has been interpreted to mean that citizenship cannot be denied to anyone born here. This erroneous interpretation of the 14th has led to the phenomenon of so-called “anchor babies” born of a mother who merely crossed into the country to give birth.

Most nations have done away with such controversial policies that are detrimental to the economic wellbeing of the country, among them Canada and Australia. We have no such policy, we have a deliberate twisting of Constitutional meaning for political and economic ends, political on the left, economic on the right.

The 14th Amendment neither dealt with nor altered the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to the office of President, so any understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” must resort to original intent. You can debate that intent all you want, but that is where the answer lies.

Far greater minds than yours or mine, genuine Constitutional scholars, have stated as much. Of course, they stated this during the controversy over McCain’s eligibility and fell oddly silent when it came to the equally questionable Obama. But, the statements do apply to either instance.

What does *not* apply, is the 14th Amendment.

However, there has never been a case which defines natural born by the Supreme Court, and since the 14th Amendment, you can't use the old citizenship cases.

Bullshit.

True SCOTUS has never ruled on NBC, but they ROUTINELY resort to Common Law for guidance when American Law is deficient. Many SCOTUS decisions say so.

If AZ passes the eligibility law and Obama is denied, he would have to go to SCOTUS for relief. Since there is no precedent [stare decisis] to go by, they will go back to the Founding Fathers' original intent - basically "What did they know - and when did they know it".

So, SCOTUS will be examining the same cases and documents that the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the Constitution. Based on the applicable law at the time of the Founding Fathers, SCOTUS will have to decide what their intent was ...