That “Clearly Defined on these threads” definition is just plain wrong. I suggest you consult with some legal scholars about what the “intent” of the founders was. All the controversy over Obama wasn’t about his parents citizenship,it was about whether or not he was born in the U.S. (Hawaii). That’s is why the “Birth Certificate Issue’ is at the heart of the argument. Anybody who tries to push the “parents citizenship argument” will get tossed out of court before they can file the papers.
But why was that? Who made it all about the certificate and forestalled what should always have been a dual inquiry. For crying out loud he admitted in his book that his father was a foreign national. That should have at least opened the door to a full treatment of parents citizenship & eligibility.
Instead the entire issue was single tracked to the birth certificate which amazingly has been allowed to remain unanswered. It’s unbelievable that a president can be allowed to to get away with that, much less with sealing all of his records and the press and the majority of the country ( and a lot of freepers) could care less.
You are correct about this. The Court will declare that an illegitimate president does not cause sufficient injury to the individual filing the suit as to constitute a justifiable standing to sue. They WILL NOT argue the merits of the case. They will put their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...."
You're pointing out that the courts will not allow a discussion does not help your argument at all. If they thought YOUR argument was correct, they wouldn't be terrified of allowing a discussion of it.
The birth certificate is a false flag, a red herring. A document floated as a deflection. It’s part of the issue but not the complete issue.
The real issue is the citizenship status and allegiance(s) of the parents.
This is consistently demonstrated by the author and narrative of the 14th Amendment and Founders’ intent.
The courts are afraid to address the issue, and at least one judge used newspaper articles and blogs as his “legal justification”! That’s pure BS.
JC