“Have you stopped to consider why it is that you can only find liberal constitutional scholars who back your position?”
It’s because in your fantasy world you get to make up stuff like that. I just posted a link to an FR article, where Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact put this question to two law professors, one of them a “senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation”.
“Loud declarations from one side and silence from the other...where has America seen this before?”
No, the reality is that in our time no one argued that the native-born child of a foreigner was ineligible until Leo Donofrio wanted to argue that Obama cannot be president. No one was saying Black’s Law Dictionary was wrong to define ‘natural-born citizen’ so that native birth was sufficient.
On 5 Oct 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” There’s no record of anyone disagreeing Senator Orrin Hatch until late in 2008.
The closest thing to a constitutional scholar who takes your side is probably Herb Titus, former dean of Pat Robertson’s Regent University. Thing is, he doesn’t seem to have said anything about it on principle. It’s just more Obama denial.
...one of them a “senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation”.
From the article...Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Hatfield’s bill contains a dual-citizenship ban that does not exist in the Constitution.
Hans doesn't seem to be addressing "the question" at all.
It’s because in your fantasy world you get to make up stuff like that.
Oh, that's so cute! Did you come up with that or did you borrow it from "local attorney and anti-birther blogger Loren Collins"?
This is pure birther fantasy...
No, the reality is that in our time no one argued that the native-born child of a foreigner was ineligible until Leo Donofrio wanted to argue that Obama cannot be president.
Define "in our time". And how could anything have been "argued" when none of the cases have been allowed to go forward? Filing briefs isn't arguing a case, is it?
On 5 Oct 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” There’s no record of anyone disagreeing Senator Orrin Hatch until late in 2008.
So friggin' what! Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) believes we planted a flag on MARS! Is she right just because she's a politician?
Snicker. The whole paragraph from Hatch, in his own words..."Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans" October 5, 2004
What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. (here's what you didn't put up...But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. That does not seem fair or right to me.
Has Hatch opined lately on the issue or has he kept his yap shut since he couldn't pave the way for Aaaahnold to run for POTUS?
WOW! You're a sneaky one, aren't you.
If you look at this page...“Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans” you'll see in the right hand column those who gave testimony and which members of the Senate Judiciary Committee submitted statements. Hatch didn't "say" anything.