Because you can't accept Obama's ties to Factcheck.
4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Have you bothered to read anything about it? Like the John Binghams statements and WHY it was written?
“3. I believe the evidence is clear that Obama was born in Honolulu”
“Because you can’t accept Obama’s ties to Factcheck.”
I can accept that factcheck may have their biases, but that by itself doesnt dismiss the evidence that they share. The COLB is only 1 of 7 points of evidence that justify Obama’s birth in Honolulu.
“4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Have you bothered to read anything about it? Like the John Binghams statements and WHY it was written?”
Yes, I hashed this out on some other threads. My point is that #4 is precisely the difference/issue the ‘birthers’ raise, eligibility questions due to place of birth and eligibility questions due to definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
For my view on #4, I point to this briefing by Bush solicitor general Ted Olson as a good summation of the law of what “natural born citizen” means.
It clearly indicates Obama is eligible if he was born in Hawaii:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
Again, getting on solid ground here.
The ‘birther’ vs ‘non-birther’ distinction has to do with views on #3 and #4, *NOT* on #1 and #2. So calling yourself “Constitutionalist” or saying that this is ‘just about asking for the birth certificate or more documentation’ is not true. Theories of Obama’s ineligibility are being asserted, that is the premise of the ‘birther’ position.