Apparently as difficult as it is for some people to understand that a Natural Born Citizen has TWO citizen parents.
This, however is not as difficult to understand as someone who deliberately and repeatedly claims to be a constitutional conservative, yet maliciously attempts to muddy the waters any time Obama is attacked on constitutional grounds.
Not naming names, but a hit dog will holler...
When are both sides going to grow up and admit that natural born citizen has NEVER been LEGALLY defined in this country? The only thing legally obvious is that naturalized citizens are not eligible to become president.
Just curious as well, using your definition, would a child with an unknown father be eligible to president? An extremely common occurrence these days I might add.
I happen to believe Obama was constitutionally, though unwisely, elected president.
If I “muddy the waters” when “Obama is attacked on constitutional grounds” it is because I believe the arguments made for his ineligibility are not valid. I think this “clears the waters” rather than muddying them.
Is it really so difficult to comprehend the difference between opposition to a politician, and refusal to accept the validity of every argument against him?
A classic example being, “a Natural Born Citizen has TWO citizen parents.”
This is not a fact, no matter how often it is capitalized. It is a contention or argument. It has some points in its favor, but after considerable research I have decided it is incorrect. The only thing that would settle it definitively would be a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. If they were to decide that you are right, I’d be happy to accept the ruling.
Till then, it is a highly debatable point, not a fact.
I want Obama to be voted out of office. I assume you do, too. Is that not more important now than obscure argumentation about Vattel and Wong Kim Ark?