Sure, if that "contemporary situation" is about cooking, or baseball, or horseshoes. But, when that situation deals with constitutional & statutory law and administrative regulation, then yes, law degrees matter a whole bunch.
I have seen not a single shred of evidence that supports a claim that Barack Obama was born ANYWHERE other than HI. The only thing people can offer is supposition, conjecture, hearsay and conspiracy.
If Barack Obama was born in HI, and we have no credible evidence that he wasn't, then he's a citizen at birth - a "natural-born citizen". That is the law as it exists today in this country.
Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me why Obama amending the medical portion of his birth certificate 45 years after the event is no big deal. Tell me why he and his mom didn’t simply have a doctor examine them within 30 days of the birth and complete the BC so there wouldn’t be these problems today.
Tell me why the DOH confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. And then tell me why Obama posted a forgery and tried to pass it off as genuine.
With all your law degrees and stellar academic record I’m sure it should be a piece of cake to hit those questions out of the ball park. Hit me with your best shot, champ.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Incorrect - all people born in this country are citizens at birth. It just means that they have been a citizen from their moment of birth. However, there are two kinds of citizens at birth: 1. US Nationals and 2. Natural Born Citizens. Check out the United States Code, if you do not believe me.
Now, the Founding Fathers left an ambiguous phrase in the Constitution: "natural born citizen". Absent a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling stating EXACTLY what a "natural born citizen" is, when a Constitutional question arises - the answer must be looked for in the Founding Fathers' intent. NO MODERN DAY INTERPRETATION TAKES PRECEDENCE ...
As far as their intent, the Founding Fathers were EXPRESSLY worried that a foreign influence might gain the Presidency and be a detriment to our country. There are many writings to this effect, including John Jay's letter to George Washington. That is why they inserted the "natural born citizen" Clause into Article II, Section I.
Now, what did they mean by that phrase ? We had just fought a war with England and they DID NOT want a foreign entity to be the Executive. They ALSO knew that, through the British Nationality Act of 1730 [clarified by the British Nationality Act of 1772], England considered children born on foreign soil to fathers who were natural born subjects to be natural born themselves.
The Founding Fathers WERE NOT stupid. They wanted LOYALTY in the Executive Office - and KNEW that the possibility for DISLOYALTY existed if such a child gained the Presidency. Ergo, such a child WAS NOT a natural born citizen.