Replies

I see a lot of supposition and argument from Donofrio, but not a lot of court citations that say anything about what he is saying.

Would you be open to reading, from Supreme Court decisions, the actual argument against a third type of citizenship?

I've been reading the SCOTUS blog for several years now and I follow everything on FR. I have read the bunkers, the debunkers and the debunker’s debunkers. I think have read every case that makes your point trying to get the true answer.

Here's what I get:
It is not specifically stated anywhere what the POTUS requirements are AND what the terms mean. You have to collect the data from multiple sources.

If you are interested in intent, you have to consider Vattel, the extra loophole they added(...or a citizen at the adoption of this constitution...),etc.

But,
I believe it is a Separation of Powers issue. The SCOTUS, as a co-equal power, does not feel they have the power to remove POTUS. If they rule on the definition, POTUS might tell them to go pound sand. If he does, a bunch of men and women in our military have to decide who they are following. Some will say they are sworn to protect the constitution. Some will say they are sworn to follow orders. This could not be good for the US. We would be instantly vulnerable.

I believe all of those in power know this. That is why this stuff goes nowhere.

Furthermore, the Constitution has a protocol for removing a president: elections or impeachment. Scotus isn't in there. They will never take the case.

Thomas intimated all of this in private talks. He knows it, Obama knows it and so do I.

They were afraid to take it up during the election because everyone was afraid of being called racist.

They are afraid to take it up now because it might destroy the country.

and I am opening to reading further. Please send any links that might enlighten me.