But before I respond further, I want to point out the double standard here.
I've pointed out literally DOZENS of fallacious arguments by the Constitutional conspiracy-mongers and Constitution-twisters here.
Just in the last day or so I listed 3 different things that DiogenesLamp said, that are clearly, absolutely FALSE.
The first was when he falsely accused me of being a "liar."
Ah, we can dismiss those. And the dozens and dozens of other bogus arguments I've pointed out.
Oh, but if someone in the course of months asks me some question, and I don't answer it to their satisfaction, oh my! I've "lost the argument."
Bull.
I don't think I ignored your question then (although I might have, I get so much stuff directed my way that it's hard to keep up with it at all times). And I answered it today, above.
The answer is that it's NOT "the most critical moment" or "the core of the issue," as you maintain.
You can justify literally just about anything by asking, "What would the Founders do?"
The measure of "what the Founders would do" is NOT your idea or mine, or Billy Bob Sampson's speculation about what he thinks, or imagines, or hopes the Founders would do.
The measure of what the Founders "would do" is WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.
That's it.
The measure of what the Founders "would do" is our HISTORY and OUR LAW. The HISTORY and the LAWS that they put in place.
That's why I've never tried to approach the question by asking theoreticals from a distance of 225 years away.
I ask not what the Founders "would" do, but what they actually DID.
Now you don't like what they did. I understand that.
It doesn't change what they did.
Did you found the United States of America? Or did they? Did you write the Constitution and set the rules for citizenship? Or did they?
So that's the approach I've taken. It's to ask: What did the Founders do?
And THAT is why I find myself at odds with the birthers. Because when push comes to shove, they really don't care what the Founders actually did.
Oh, if it happens to agree with them, then they'll accept it. If it doesn't, they'll pretend the Founders did something else, whatever it is that THEY like. And they'll pretend to give lip service to the Founders while denying those same Founders' actions and words.
I'm not here to give lip service to the Constitution.
I will state upfront that I believe there are many dots missing in the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUSA let alone a validated USA citizen. I suppose this makes me a ‘birther’ which I can live with and keep looking for a complete history. I have had the benefit and as to some persons an advantage of an education about this Nation and It’s Constitution from my first years of a parochial grade school to my exit graduation exam on the Constitution from a world renowned university. I have several copies of the ‘Declaration of Independence’ and the ‘Constitution’ in my small personal library along with various books/documents. I served in WWII and my only sibling brother, who was killed on Okinawa, were sons of immigrant parents and we were taught to honor and respect the USA Constitution. I have no problem believing that other persons in their own world of experiences can view the Obama matter differently than I do. However. I will not be influenced by another’s view unless I decide for myself what is valid and applicable.
Oh, you mean this sidestepping evasion?
"The question presumes to pretend to know what the Founding Fathers "would" do. It's a bogus, BS question, because ANYBODY can claim the Founding Fathers would support their particular mission."
Jeff, that's not an answer. It's a complete rejection, and outright invalidation of the basic premise. Again, you fail, because you can't provide a logical answer without puncturing your entire argument, for which you've invested far too much to turn back now.
Oh yes, Jeff, you most certainly have conceded the argument, whether you openly admit it or not.
This entire discussion rests upon the definition of NBC. One can arbitrarily choose any of several conditions of birth to secure that definition. Logic dictates that those who are tasked with crafting the founding charter for a nation just birthed in the blood of its citizens, would not choose the qualifications for the office of President arbitrarily, but would examine those several conditions of birth, and wisely choose the one most likely to produce a citizen whose loyalty to country and ken is strongest.
You insist that the Framers chose a lesser grade of citizenship as the qualification bar for the office of President, even though they expressed the necessity of setting the highest possible bar for that office in their private letters.
Why, after fighting a bloody war that saw thousands of their countrymen give their lives and treasure, would they then be so lax as to leave the door open for someone with divided loyalties to one day assume the most powerful office in the land?
It's illogical, Jeff. It fails the horse sense test. And you have once again failed the intellectual honesty test by refusing to answer my simple question.