You know it would be precedent setting. Since you could care less about the office being usurped, you’ve been trying since the beginning to dissuade people from taking notice and/or work to expose the usurper.
You know it would be precedent setting. Since you could care less about the office being usurped, you’ve been trying since the beginning to dissuade people from taking notice and/or work to expose the usurper.
No, I don't and that's why I gave you that comparison to murder and getting away with it and using that as a "precedent" for future murder... the law doesn't work that way.
What would be a precedent -- would be -- if the Supreme Court weighed in on this and said -- "This is perfectly fine and it's legitimate and a candidate can do that!"
Then you would have a precedent and a Supreme Court decision affirming it. Short of that, you've got no precedent. It has to be an affirmative precedent to change the way the law treats it now.
The only thing (here in this issue) that is of concern about being a "precedent" -- is just one thing (that I can see, anyway). It's not about being born in Hawaii, because since the State of Hawaii says that he was born there, then it's not setting a precedent that someone can be born in another country and yet still be President here. The State of Hawaii has already said that Obama was born in Hawaii. No precedent is set for someone being born in another country from their official statement.
BUT, a precedent can be set on the other issue having to do with parents having different citizenship -- if -- the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue and issue their decision saying that it only matters that the candidate was born on U.S. soil and meets the other qualifications of the Constitution.
In other words, for a precedent to be set, it's going to take the Supreme Court making an affirmative declaration to that effect.