The Constitution requires a President to not only be a citizen , but also be a Natural born citizen . IF obama was born in Hawaii( unlikely) then he is a citizen( 14th amendment) but is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution. Any certificate supplied by obama must show that BOTH of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. This is the reason he refuses to release his birth records. His birth certificate is legal proof that he is not the legal President of the U.S.
Joseph Farah has finally found an audience, and has no intention of letting go of it. Wonder what his ad revenue is like at WND?
Just to re-state the obvious (and the article does a pretty good job of it).
You are supporting what the article has termed the Vattel Theory.
The SC could take the case and determine that the Vattel Theory is not the governing law, but something else is.
They could, for instance, decide that Natural Born means any citizen who is a citizen at birth, as opposed to one
who gains citizenship via immigration and naturalization.
Such an interpretation would mwan that if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is legally president.
I say this because the term Natural Born has not been well defined in law up to this point.
I’m a bit surprised that the 110th Congress didn’t pass a law stipulating what Natural Born meant.
I still strongly believe the SC doesn’t want to touch this with a 10 foot poll. I think the best (only) way for birthers to make progress on their project is by putting eligibility tests into law in the several states.
But, because this is such a fringe issue there has been no progress on that, and it looks like Obama will have a second term, illegal or not, and never be forced to prove ANYTHING.