“How do I know it is not settled law? There is a guy in the WH who was not born of US citizen parents and has a birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii saying he was born there. “
umm.. no. the birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery by an official law enforcement body.
the left wanted him, as he’s as hard left as they could find... and they have disregarded the law, and the Constitution, to do it.
“You and I can agrue what is the definition of natural born citizen as it applies to eligibility to be President under the Constitution, but we can’t resolve it. Only the courts can do that and they have never been presented with this case.”
yea, because the Constitution was written so only the high priests would be able to divine its meaning. as for a case regarding his eligibility, it has popped up and was promptly shut down... as all similar cases have. it’s never allowed on the docket.
all those trying to state that being born on the soil is enough, always fail to explain why the founders deliberately changed the wording from citizen to natural born citizen. it was discussed in the federalist papers. they wanted to insure that no person taking the office had split allegiances, at least by birth.
this isn’t rocket science and does not require the high priests of the supreme court to figure out. it was common wording used around the world for centuries.
Personally, I believe it is a forgery, but it has not been proven in a court of law. Joe Arpaio's Cold Posse was not really an official law enforcement body. They were appointed by Arpaio at no cost to the government of Maricopa County or the state of Arizona. As far as I know, there have been no charges of criminality levied by anyone.
this isn’t rocket science and does not require the high priests of the supreme court to figure out. it was common wording used around the world for centuries.
Sorry, but that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. Again, to state the obvious, we have someone in the WH who has been deemed to be eligible to hold that office and is acting as the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief. He is exercising the authority of that office and no one in our government has questioned his right to sign laws, order troops into harms way, issue executive orders, etc. Until we resolve this in the courts, what you and I think means diddly squat. As I have stated, this needs to be resolved sooner rather than later for the reasons I cited.