That it wasn't made an issue (and I think it was) is not proof that one theory or the other is correct. As a matter of fact, how can you say that the requirement is to be born in the United States and then say that it's okay if you're not?
Is that doublespeak or something?
As for the matter never coming up before Obama, we've never seen this problem in our lifetimes before Obama. Had George Romney won the nomination in 1968, rest assured someone would have made an issue of it. They certainly did in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes ran for President.
When I took civics, we were taught that an NBC was born of two citizens on US soil. My brother was born in Bermuda, on a US naval base to two US citizens. We were told he could never be President because he didn’t meet the NBC a requirement. He had to choose between US and British citizenship at one point in his life.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend unless you have a political agenda?
And why would it ever be allowed if your agenda is political?
Who cares if someone is popular? Who cares if Obama has slipped by this requirement? (I do but it really is a moot point now) Does anyone here really want to leave this open to have another obama? Clearly he is not American through education or his heart.
Those that voted for him were intoxicated by hope and change, or they wanted free stuff. He is clearly not an NBC no matter how you argue it. He is a statutory citizen...not by birthright, but by statute.
Any clear-headed person knows this.
If you care about this Country, you wouldn’t allow this again and you would demand better than allow anyone with divided interests to run for the highest office. I’m appalled how the political agenda is driving us to our ruin.
George Romney’s eligibility absolutely was an issue. In fact the Congressional Research Service studied the question and agreed that he was eligible.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jloneil1/Random/PapaMitt.pdf