[A strike]

Regardless of whether or not there is quite literally nothing new, it points to original intent interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, if that is out of fashion as way back as 2008 it should have been adjudicated as such and not just proclaimed (like ‘No 2020 Election Fraud’ was never adjudicated ).
At any rate the article’s arguments are almost indisputable without bias/illogic or just plain failure to get a grip. MOST telling is “ Why is nbC in the Constitution ?”

-fJRoberts

[CDR Kerchner]

Yes indeed, the WHY is the tell as to the reason the founders and framers put the "natural born Citizen" term into the presidential eligibility clause. For those that want to learn more about the WHY, see: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

[thecodont]

Regardless of whether or not there is quite literally nothing new, it points to original intent interpretation of the Constitution.

There are people out there proclaiming that Constitutional originalism is dangerous and evil.