I support Trump but this birther nonsense is ludicrous. Birthers simply repeat their mantra. No legal authority at any level agrees with them. They don’t care. I doubt this will make it to the Supreme Court, but if it does it will be shot down. And even then, birthers will simply proclaim that the court got it wrong. They will never capitulate. I have never seen a birther on any thread respond to any of the thousands of reasonably crafted logical arguments against them.
Well here's your chance. Put forth your argument.
“And even then, birthers will simply proclaim that the court got it wrong.”
Is it possible for the Court to get anything wrong? What about Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.
A few Freepers who have researched the issue document that the courts have already ruled, and under those rulings, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
Then you have the ORIGINAL birthers, the writers of the Constitution who were crass enough to include the “NATURAL BORN” concept into the Constitution as as requirement to be president of the United States. Why on earth would they abandon mere “citizen” and go to “natural born citizen”, the only time it is used in the Constitution?
And why were millions of us throughout the nation’s history taught in schools that “natural born” meant descent from citizen parents and born in the USA?
And, most telling, why won’t Cruz release any citizenship documentation, say, for instance, what he used to get his driver’s license.
Do you realize that Cruz and Obama could not even get a teaching job anywhere in the United States because the teaching applicants are required to submit birth certificates and EVERY OTHER documentation record that is possible for any person to have?
Recall in 2011 how they *here* used to claim in comments that a single judge would order Obama out of the WH, nullify the 2008 election and all the bills he signed.
All under the phrase ‘the constitution’
The birthers kept trying to judge shop for one who would take it up till one of them got fined for wasting the courts time.
This entire post is a reply to (or analysis of) the arguments and assertions in the commentary published in the Harvard Law Review which was quoted at length in the Pennsylvania opinion.
There are basically no well-founded arguments in the commentary.
There are some intentionally deceptive ones, however-- like the argument that John Jay would never have proposed a Constitutional provision (he proposed the "natural born" requirement) that would have excluded from the presidency his own children born abroad during his service as ambassador. There is no reasonable explanation for using this argument other than deceptive intent. (Ambassador's kid's were/are natural born under common law, and any competent lawyer writing in good faith on this issue would know it. The authors are not incompetent.)