Perhaps nothing should be done...yet.
Why not?
Firstly, because winning against Obama and the left using the NBC argument would be seen by a very large plurality as an unjust and unfair denial of the will of the majority who elected him. They would see it, at best, as the use of a technicality no longer relevant to the modern age in order to overturn the will of the people. It would make Obama into a martyr.
Secondly, so few people realize that Obama is not Constitutionally President that his masquerading as such sets no precedent. That is why the ferocious bleating of the NBC deniers is so useful: It establishes beyond any possibility of denial that most people either are totally unaware of the facts, or angrily deny that Obama’s masquerade as President is in violation of the Constitution’s NBC requirement. So when the truth finally is recognized officially, they won’t be able to argue that Obama’s masquerade was accepted in spite of the full and certain knowledge that he is not a natural born citizen.
sourcery wrote: “Firstly, because winning against Obama and the left using the NBC argument would be seen by a very large plurality as an unjust and unfair denial of the will of the majority who elected him.”
It “would be seen” as much, much worse than that. Anyone can simply look up the definition in /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and see that Obama qualifies. No one was saying /Black’s/ had it wrong, not until a certain faction wanted reasons why Obama cannot be president.
Remember my challenge to you, sourcery, to cite yourself holding the two-citizen-parent theory before the issue was Barack Obama? You declined. I’ve issued that challenge over and over and birthers *never* have the goods. Their sources are either so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), or so new that they came up with it specifically to deny Obama the presidency.
Americans accept, even celebrate, that our Constitution does not always give the majority its way. Furthermore, we respect contrarians, those who advocate for unpopular positions on principle. The problem for the Vattel-birthers is that we never heard a single one of them take their position when what was at stake was the principle.
I think you are right, sourcery, that the NBC argument would be seen as unfair and unjust, yet you miss the core issue and the magnitude. People see you for what you are. Vattel-birthers are not principled contrarians. They are cheaters who started telling the rules different when they did not like who was winning.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this time, sourcery, you will respond with a citation showing that you advanced your legal theory before the issue was Barack Obama. If so, I will post the appropriate apology and retraction. I would still disagree with your legal theory, but I would respect you as principled contrarian, and take back my implication that you are just another sore loser trying to cheat.