You said: “ I do not go down and shoot up MacDonalds. Very few people do that sort of thing. But when a whacko does such a thing, the liberals bleed and moan and try to take my guns. Why??? There’s no such thing as a perfect, risk-free world. Because nutcases will be nutcases on fairly rare occasions is no reason to disarm a free citizenry. As they say, “hard cases make for bad law.”
Sooo, this looks to me like you get it. Asking whether or not Osama Bin Laden Junior could be the president is a “hard case” and I gave you the “hard case” answer-—yes, if he won.
You might as well ask if a retarded person could be president??? (OH is this a loaded question!!!) The “hard case” answer is again yes, and all the terrible things that might happen are just speculation, and the same type of ILLOGICAL argument the Vattle Birthers make with the “Son of Osama” argument.
All the “third kind” of citizen stuff is just hooey, and the law doesn’t require it and because there isn’t any law that backs up the Vattle Birthers, they resort to these inflaming type of questions to throw people off. Here is what a REAL COURT said in 2009, and I think it was even said by the higher court on appeal or something:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
That is about as simple as it gets. The “hard answer” is that Obama is legal if he was truly born in Hawaii.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
And this "REAL COURT" said this in 2009 — apparently wiping out over 200 years of American jurisprudence in the process?
And you don't/can't tell me about its appeals history, if any?
And you think that quite novel proposition is going to sit well with me — a second generation natural-born American citizen and member in good standing of We the People???
What, are you some kind of one-worlder, open-borders left progressive, or what?
Please advise!