[centurion316]

I don’t think that either the politicians or the judiciary care much about this issue, either in the abstract or in the particulars of the Obama situation. Certainly politicians are not going to voluntarily accept any limitations on what their particular class can do. The people will have to do that and they will have to do it without using the courts as a crutch. Voters can force their legislators and/or state officials to demand proof of eligibility as a condition of a listing on the ballot for both primary and general elections. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of a ground swell to do that.

Absent that, someone who is a viable Presidential candidate will have to raise a challenge before an election is held.

I don’t like being called a troll and am more that happy to take on anyone who has recklessly slung such a slander in my direction. As to the Scalia comment, you may recall that I simply agreed with what Scalia had said regarding the point of natural birth. My point of agreement can be found here:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/justice-scalia-natural-born-requiring-jus-soli/

I have not expressed any opinion about what others in the 19th Century or any other time may have had to say.

There have been three opportunities to resolve this issue: Arthur, Agnew, Obama. Hasn’t happened yet, has it.

[edge919]

If Chester Arthur’s and Spiro Agnew’s fathers both immigrated and naturalized, they are much, much closer to being natural born than Obama can claim. Those fathers quit their countries to become U.S. citizens, while the visiting scholar Barak Sr. went back to his home country with no intention of ever being a U.S. citizen. Natural born is about having a birthright and the only birthright Obama has is that of British, Kenyan or Indonesian citizenships.

[AmericanVictory]

The meaning of the word "exclude" is quite clear. He is in fact describing the founding concern about someone coming here, say an Englishman, siring a child without acquiring citizenship and then leaving, the well known "dual allegiance" that so concerned Washington and Jay, among others. Further, he is discussing the matter in the context of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment in the case before him, not in the context of the use of the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. It is true that the child of such an alien, non-citizen father might be a citizen (and thus would be so by virtue of jus soli but what Scalia clearly says is that the Framers would have been concerned that the child was not natural born as in the qualification for President. You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding what he is saying.

It would be jus soli for such a child of an alien father to be a citizen but not for him to be eligible to be President. There the Framer's concern that Scalia mentions would be controlling if their intent were analyzed by virtue of what Scalia himself is saying what their concern was. Scalia would agree with what St. George Tucker explained in his comments about the Constitutional provision at the end of his Blackstone of 1804.

There are clearly those, like Judge Robertson, who don't care about the issue because of their bias, but it would appear that Scalia is not among them, at least from the comment you cite and might well actually apply the law as intended in the Constitution.

[AmericanVictory]

By the way, there was no opportunity as you put it in Arthur’s case He went to great lengths to prevent one from arising. In Agnew’s case I don’t believe that it has been established that his parents were not both citizens when he was born.

[bushpilot1]

The link you posted is a known Obama troll site in bed with obamaconspiracy aka Dr. Conspiracy. Dr. Conspiracy was banned from FR.