“So you’re for a strict reading of the Constitution regarding the Right to Keep and Bear arms, regardless of what courts are saying; yet opposed to a strict reading of the Constitution in regards to the qualification for the President. Gotcha.”
Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.
Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.
Perhaps you should read this post, by rxsid before making that claim.
Under English common law, Obama is a natural born subject of Great Britain.
Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.
I am not so sure you are correct--I think there may have been a reasonable position based on the Law of Nations document and the correspondence among the drafters of the Constitution that something else might be required.
But at least the conventional wisdom in the Constitutional Bar is that argument disappeared with adoption of the 14th Amendment--the Amendment gave everyone born in the USA all of the conceivable rights of a citizen including the right to claim natural born.
However the overwhelming weight of secondary and tertiary evidence is pretty clear that Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. (if that is who he is) was born in the Coastal General Hospital in Mombasa.
Yes, there are lots of responses to that evidence--but what there is that you can put in the record is sufficient to force the responder to make the case that he was born in the US. And that kind of showing and argument will open the door to discovery that will produce sufficient persuasive and admissible evidence that he was in fact born in Kenya.
Now if what you are saying is that to the extent the Lakin proceeding is founded solely on the proposition that even if Obama was born in the US, natural born requires something else, you are correct--any lawyer who took this argument on any basis other than born in Kenya is probably not qualified to be in court.