[MHGinTN]

These bastards don’t even try any more to hide their contempt for the We The People Constitutional Republic. Scum, pure commie oozing scum.

[The Free Engineer]

[bgill]

Even “when a case involves the Constitution, the text routinely gets no attention,” for “on a day-to-day basis, American constitutional law is about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy.”

Ok, I'll play along. Seems to me there have been 42 previous presidents who have followed the rules and 1 for whom there are many questions. Ok, that takes care of precedents so lets see about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy. Sorry, life ain't fair so fairness doesn't enter the equation, but common sense and good policy does. John Jay's letter to George Washington proposed that there be a specific distinction for the office of the president in that he be a natural born citizen. Ok, sounds John and George and the other founding fathers had some good common sense there in not wanting a foreigner in the executive office... Viva, Fidel!!!, uh, no, that won't work... so they set good policy with the Constitutional amendment.

[Migraine]

In the majority of instances, Strauss argues, “the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role

I'll bet the farm that he doesn't feel that way about the 14th amendment. The libtards treat the 14th with utmost reverence. All the rest of the Constitution, though, is negotiable to them (and the 10th is to be ignored as though it weren't there).

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Spaulding]

Good point Smokeyblue. But look through the responses and you will not see any reference to the phrase “natural born” cited in your title. Who are the useful idiots?

There are comments about the 14th Amendment, but no mention of the clear enunciation of the definition of natural born citizen by John Bingham, principal author of Amendment 14, in an address to the joint session of congress, and in writing for the Congressional Record (thanks SatinDoll). Why do you think the birth certificate dominates most discussion of Obama’s eligibility? Probably because endless speculation will extend far beyond 2012 and no proof will require the production of such a certificate. But regardless of where Barry was born, he and his father were British subjects, and that is a fact in evidence. That is why birth certificates have so many fans, not all of whom support Obama intentionally, but all of whom distract from the unquestionable violation of Article II Section I clause 5.

The tabloid conjecture about hundreds of details is a distraction if one reads the framers, court cases, the founders (founders fought and framers wrote the Constitution - some were both founders and framers). At no time in our history has someone born a subject of another country been eligible for the presidency. The one president with a British father, Chester Arthur, hid his family documents, distracted the public with lies to encourage a wild goose chase over possible Canadian or Irish birth, similarly to Obama’s Hawaiian intrigue, and burned his personal documents just before he died. Arthur's ineligiblity was exposed by Leo Donofrio in the fall of 2008 while he and his sister were researching the remaining papers of Arthur. His father's naturalization document was somehow not noticed, or its significance not recognized by curators until Donofrio, familiar with the Constitution, came across it.

Orrin Hatch proposed an amendment to make Schwarzenegger eligible in 2003, the twenty fourth such amendment attempt, and got nowhere). Obama is ineligible because he was not “Born in the country of citizen parents.”

Obama supporters and many here on Free Republic would like you to doubt the validity of this claim, and many will say that the election made him eligible. We were created as a nation of laws. To ignore our laws because of a presumed majority opinion makes us a popular democracy and not a republic. The history of popular democracies can be seen in Venezuela and Cuba.

[Uncle Chip]

“In the majority of instances, Strauss argues, “the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role.” Even “when a case involves the Constitution, the text routinely gets no attention,” for “on a day-to-day basis, American constitutional law is about precedents, and when precedents leave off, it is about commonsense notions of fairness and good policy.”

That sounds like the state of affairs in most of our churches these days regarding the Scriptures. They are merely ceremonial as well.

[parsifal]

I would say something here, but I just drooled into my keyboard and it is sparking. Gotta run. . .

parsy, who says Help!

[SomeoneSaySandwich?]

What if it was something as simple as-they simply got the names mixed up. They thought Stanley was the father and Barack was the mother and put them in the wrong slot, and it’s all a big misunderstanding.

This issue has had two years to grow legs and it hasn’t. You’d think Supreme Court Justices of all people wouldn’t have sworn in someone who was ineligible. Or GOP congressmen would’ve done their duty.