I am a birther in that I believe the POTUSA must have creditable and publicly established birth credentials as stipulated by the Constitution while recognizing that people are differing as to what might be called ‘cause and effect’ of such a belief. I take your comments to place alongside my beliefs. There is one point of your arguments that especially caught my attention. That point is your using the Congressional Research Service to validate a position that only place of birth e.g. the USA is necessary for POTUSA eligibility. I have the opinion that under that particular CRS there was a biased finding for the Obama case that I see as in conflict with the hearings at the Constitutional Convention . However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.
Historically, not everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen. Citizen parents weren't required, but if the parents were visiting royalty, foreign ambassadors, or members of an occupying army, the child was not an nbc.
Oh, and by the way: Just because someone is constitutionally elgible doesn’t mean the american people would or should elect him or her.
We have Communists, Mafia bosses, serial murderers, terrorists and doctor-certified lunatics who are all natural born citizens with 2 American citizen parents and 4 American citizen grandparents.
Yes, the founding fathers intended to protect us from some foreign royalty breezing over here and buying his way into the Presidency. But they never intended to “protect” us from every possible poor choice that we could make for President. Specifically, they never intended to “protect” us from electing American-born citizens as our chief executive.