[DavidFarrar]

There is a weakness in his argument. It relies on the citizenship (allegiance) of the offspring as being that of the father’s alone. A clear enough notion when the Constitution was written, but would it stand close judicial scrutiny today?

Can we still state the allegiance of the child belongs solely with that of the father, and, if so; what legal premise do we use to support this contention? Why wouldn’t the citizenship of the mother now play an equal role in the allegiance of the child of today, or in 1961?

But let’s be clear, none of these questions can even be addressed unless or until Obama comes clean about his past, and that is going to take a court order.

The only other way I can see we can proceed in this regard is to form “Birther” committees in every state of the union with the idea of getting the state legislatures to pass a state statute requiring all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office as set forth in the U.S. Constitution before their names can be placed on the ballot of that state.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[Art in Idaho]

The only other way I can see we can proceed in this regard is to form “Birther” committees in every state of the union with the idea of getting the state legislatures to pass a state statute requiring all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office as set forth in the U.S. Constitution before their names can be placed on the ballot of that state.

Anyone have any news on this from their state? Totally agree with this. This takes time, so everyone start writing their state legislatures. .