I can’t tell if people like you are kidding or smoking dope. Whatever the case, you are not funny or factual. Hundreds of babies are born every year to Americans abroad, and not one of them is uneligible to run for Pres. some day.
Obama’s dad was Kenyan. Obama himself held a dual citizenship until age 21. He is not a natural born citizen.
Here is a legal brief written by a law professor and he's not kidding or smoking dope.
I have several responses in this class so I am going to try to make it a little clearer for you.
I am a lawyer; I am admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court; I have argued Constitutional Law cases; I did get the highest grade in my Law School Con Law course; and I was on the Editorial Board of my Law Review. So no, I am not a locker room lawyer who just came in on the local turnip truck.
I know you don't like the message. One generally would not know for sure where the Supreme Court will come down at a given time on a given issue. But there are a number of good indications about where the Court will stand on these questions.
Historically, there may well have been some support for Vattel's description of the Common Law and the argument that the founder's intended those views to control interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen clause. That era is now far in the rear view mirror.
The Natural Born provision is in disfavor. There is a generally accepted view that the framer's intention has been overruled to the extent the clause implies some requirement other than birth in the US. You may not like it but that is where the Court will come down on the narrow issue of a person born in the US.
Have the literal words been removed? Probably not. If faced with the need to decide this question, the Court will hold that there is a requirement that to be eligible to hold the office of President, a person must be a citizen; and must have become a citizen by right of birth.
I also think that the Liberal attack on Goldwater as well as the professional commentary with respect to other's in the same position (Inoui and Gruening) leaves them stuck with the born within the geographical territory of the several states position. If the end of whatever legal process is undertaken leaves a finding that Obama was born in Mombasa in place, he's out; if it leaves him born in Hawaii, he wins; simple as that.
Obama and his troops have not in any way given up on reelection. His supporter's in DC look you in the eye and point out that FDR was down double digits and managed to get reelected. They are perfectly aware of the eligibility problem and have spent a lot of money laying the groundwork to deal with it. The are as aware as you are that many of the states are taking action to keep him off the ballot and they have a carefully thought out legal position to prevent that result.
With respect to McCain, it has always been clearly understood that he was not eligible. Had he received the most electoral votes, they would not have certified him.
With respect to all the other military children born all over the world, you think it is wrong to exclude them from the Presidency? You are in the same boat with the Liberals, you need to support a Constitutional Amendment to get there.
In fact, one of the best attacks that could be mounted on Obama is the point raised by John Dean that the Natural Born requirement is a potential future snare in a crisis--we might find that a person in the line of succession who needed to be serving was not eligible.
We ought to amend the Constitution to clearly specify what it takes to be Natural Born and the process of doing that might well focus on Obama's ineligibility.
The argument that the states would ultimately decide qualification is generally a good one as long as the Court has not already ruled that he is eligible. Under those circumstances, the equal protection argument would hold the citizens of the states that wanted to ignore the prior decision entitled to have their vote counted. The only available recourse would be a collateral attack to overturn the earlier decision--highly unlikely. Point of this analysis is again to suggest that there is real downside to a possible case founded on one of these outdated Vattel arguments that does not get a lower court finding that he was born in Mombasa.
One of the real problems with this entire process has been that we have failed to get real lawyers with realistic understanding of the legal and political context of this argument. Whatever his shortcomings as a lawyer might have been, Obama has had the best legal help and has won.
As I have pointed out for the last two years, in order to exclude Obama on ineligibility grounds, we need a well financed legal team; a plaintiff with clear standing; and a receptive forum. The fact that we all know he is not eligible is not enough.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of addressing David’s comment.