All written by people who weren't there. What's funny is you don't seem to have anything from people that were. I do, but you have no interest in seeing them. You'd rather just keep popping off with subsequent book writers and lawyers that don't know what the H3ll they are talking about.
He wasn't born then!
And a person that cannot understand the connection between Obama who was not born then, and that bit of history, shouldn't be lecturing other people about history. You demonstrate with such words that you don't comprehend the concept of history.
Seriously, that is another funny statement from you. The topic of Natural Born Citizen has nothing to do with Obama because "He wasn't born then!" I would agree the topic of "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with Obama, but that's because he isn't one, and has little to do with when he was born.
But, being the daft person you are, you can't see how Obama has nothing to do with any of that.
And once more, I have to agree with you about Obama having nothing to do with any of that, but not for the reasons you think. Obama and "natural born citizen" are definitely concepts that are mutually exclusive to each other.
He is about the most "unnatural" sort of citizen of which you can conceive.
Most everything you've offered I've shown to be without merit. James Madison explaining the underlying theory which supports my view that the founding generation of Washington, etc., "retained their birthright" even after the dissolution with England (thus, they were not naturalized) is a strong contemporary source. And you know that -- that's why you keep ducking that evidence.
My later point was that arguing 18th and 19th century history is not "pro-Obama" (by definition). Your reply is strawman stuff.