[Non-Sequitur]

So you want an amendment describing exactly how prospective presidents should be vetted making sure they are natural born citizens, or citizens at all, or we just have to take their (lying) word for it?

No, a simple law would do. Whaddya got?

[Freedom2specul8]

We already covered that today, where ya been? start with secretary of states, (see previous posts), then see what to do when they fail oath of office (see previous posts), then ..well, we’re waiting what to see happens, if it’s proven that the secretary of states failed to do their jobs and soley relied on the dnc’s word. It’s all dependant upon state statutes on how sos’s are removed from office for failing to abide by their oath of office..the one that says they have to uphold and defend the constitution. Catch up! ((snort))

[nufsed]

We have a law in Cal which allows the sec of state to see the birth certificate. I took you to school on it last week-end, even quoted from it. You also know that the sec of state of Cal has exercised that authority twice with presidential candidates.

At this point you are perpetuating a lie by asking a false question for which you know the answer.

Say something non-repetitous and I may stay.

[Freedom2specul8]

FROM SCOTUS

Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.

2. Despite the recognition of the maternal root by the 1934 amendment, in effect at the time of plaintiff’s birth, and despite the continuing liberalization of the succeeding statutes, the plaintiff still would not be entitled to full citizenship because, although his mother met the condition for her residence in the United States, the plaintiff never did fulfill the residential condition imposed for him by any of the statutes.

3. This is so even though the liberalizing 1940 and 1952 statutes, enacted after the plaintiff’s birth, were applicable by their terms to one born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, the date of the 1934 Act, and were available to the plaintiff. See nn. 5 and 1, supra.

Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born. The plaintiff [401 U.S. 815, 827] nevertheless failed to satisfy any form of the condition.

from last link.