Why the insult?
I have read the opinions of the lawyers here on Free Republic from both sides ( both the afterbirters and the defenders of the Constitution). Given the heated discussion and long posts sprinkled with links, I conclude that this isn't “basic” stuff. Anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would understand this. ( My turn for an insult.)
So...During WWII, during the Battle of the Bulge, when Hitler dressed up his soldiers as military officers and sent them behind our lines, did that make these men American officers? **If** Obama is found through discovery, not to be a natural born citizen, ( or even a citizen at all) then he can dress himself up in the “uniform” of the White House, but that doesn't make him a president. There are those who disagree with you. Impeachment is reserved for valid presidents.
At this point, we must now agree to disagree.
The definition of "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution may not be basic stuff in that there is some room for debate, but the process for removing a sitting president is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would understand this. ( My turn for an insult.)
Apparently you don't.
So...During WWII, during the Battle of the Bulge, when Hitler dressed up his soldiers as military officers and sent them behind our lines, did that make these men American officers?
That isn't even remotely analogous.
**If** Obama is found through discovery, not to be a natural born citizen, ( or even a citizen at all) then he can dress himself up in the “uniform” of the White House, but that doesn't make him a president. There are those who disagree with you. Impeachment is reserved for valid presidents.
Obama was elected by a comfortable margin. The electoral vote was duly cast and accepted by none other than Cheney without a peep, and Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath. That's what makes him president and worthy of impeachment.
How are you going to get "discovery"?