You’ve sidestepped my point entirely.
Most of us “birthers” are past arguing case law at this point. After nearly two years of discussing this issue and turning over every conceivable argument and fact, the consensus conclusion is that the Framers intended that all American presidents should be born to the soil and the blood of this country.
Period. End of story.
They drew their inspiration for this constitutional requirement from Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and other sources. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was instrumental in ensuring that language which restricted the office of president to “Natural Born Citizens” was included in the US Constitution.
Argue court rulings, amendments to the Constitution, or statute law all you want, but this community has been through all of that for nearly two years now, and has fairly well risen above all of the minutiae of the issue.
What’s more important in the larger scope of things, is the common-sense understanding of what condition of allegiance our Commander in Chief should have, and that is without question, one who is born to the soil and the blood of this nation.
The Framers understood the importance of this, and so do we. It’s why most of us now demand that Obama prove that he meets this criterion, or relinquish the office.
“After nearly two years of discussing this issue and turning over every conceivable argument and fact, the consensus conclusion is that the Framers intended that all American presidents should be born to the soil and the blood of this country.”
Consensus among who? Internet lawyers? Self-proclaimed patriots?
That doesn’t cut it. Particularly when those self-proclaimed patriots feel free to attack anyone who comes to a different conclusion as Obama employees, or folks who hate the Constitution!
I spent 25 years in the military. The two kids I’ve got old enough to go into the military did so - daughter in the Marines, son in the Army. Both did tours in Iraq. And I’ve had birthers on this forum tell me that since I disagree with their interpretation of NBC, they pity my kids for having a traitor father.
If birthers - and I am NOT saying you behaved that way - act like that, they need hard evidence. They need an irrefutable case, not a ‘maybe this was meant’ case.
And they do not have it. Maybe Vittal - in the French - was accurate. Maybe Blackstone was. The Congress and Courts have said the latter is. But it is NOT a clear, open/shut case. And that won’t support overturning Obama’s election, nor will it support the rabid attacks made on this forum by [other] birthers.
Here! Here!
I wish I had your elegance of thought...... spot on man!
Nevertheless, your conclusion: "It’s why most of us now demand that Obama prove that he meets this criterion, or relinquish the office." is iffy.