You missed my point. The Constitution is not a technicality, but Obama fails to meet “natural born citizen” status, if he does fail, by a technicality of the statutory law of the 1950s that was in force when he was born.
The Constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen but what defines “natural born citizen” has varied from time to time and was defined by laws subsequent to the Constitution.
If Obama was born in Kenya, then the only reason he is not a natural born citizen is that his mother was 1 year short of the requisite number of years of residence over the age of 18. Since she was short not because she was an immigrant but because she was young, POLITICALLY SPEAKING, to disqualify him on that basis is a technicality.
I respect the Constitution as much as you do. I also understand politics. Obama’s shortcoming is 1 year based on 1950s law. The vast majority of Americans understandably would see that as a technicality. If you can’t begin to understand how the rest of the country thinks and feels, you can’t possible persuade them of anything you care deeply about.
Well, you weren't all that definite about your "point", so yeah, I filled in the appropriate blanks. Namely, that you called the disqualifying of Obama, a "technicality", for which there is no defense.
Understand that our Constitution is the bedrock upon which all statutory laws are built. The Constitution is paramount to any statute, which is why this issue is powerful, has teeth, and will continue to dog Obama, no matter what the courts decide.
At least some of the people can't be so easily disarmed or dissuaded with propaganda and arcane legal minutiae. Some of us can actually read and understand the plain and simple language of the Framers, and it is those people, who are determined to disable the usurper, Obama.
The Constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen but what defines “natural born citizen” has varied from time to time and was defined by laws subsequent to the Constitution.
I disagree. What has "varied from time to time", is the interpretation and alteration of the Framers' clear meaning of that phrase. They were intent upon ensuring that no person of divided loyalties ever be allowed to assume the office of President. This was made abundantly clear in their comments on the subject, at the time.
...to disqualify him on that basis is a technicality.
By my count, you used the word "technicality" three times in your post to me. I don't care how you spin it, the basic qualifications to assume the office of President are NOT "technicalities". Ask me if I could give a rat's ass whether or not the Obots understand that, or not.
I respect the Constitution as much as you do.
You obviously do not respect the Constitution as much as I do, or else you wouldn't be trying to talk me (or the rest of us) out of upholding it. If you respected our founding document as much as the rest of us, you'd be applying your mind and efforts toward solutions to compel adherence to it.
I also understand politics.
Screw politics. This is the foundation of the Republic we're dealing with here.