True. But only the majority opinions take effect.
If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, you might want to comment on what YOU believe the framers intent was in drafting the 'natural born' directive for those that wished to serve as president: as that was the substance of my post.
Well since you asked...
I think the framers recognized two types of citizenship - citizen at birth or natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen. Those are the only two forms that are mentioned or implied in the Constitution. I do not believe the founders ever contemplated a form of 'super citizen' among those born in this country. I believe that the Supreme Court was right and expressed the founders intent when they ruled in the Ark case that that children born here, regardless of their parents nationality, were citizens at birth. I believe this because the precedent for such a decision goes back before this country was founded, even before Blackstone wrote as much in his commentaries on English law. And as educated men, and since many were also lawyers, the founders would be well aware of that and if they meant otherwise then they would have expressed that intent somehwere. But they didn't. As a result I believe 'natural born' and 'citizen at birth' are, and were meant to be, synonymous. And that any person born in this country, regadless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.
“And that any person born in this country, regardless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.”
Fair enough.
The problem is obama’s performance seems to contradict your assessment of his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen.
If he were born in Hawaii why doesn’t he just release his vault ‘BC’ and be done with it?
I had to send copies of my vital regards in order to get my California Real Estate license and undergo a full FBI background check too!
Even a minimum wage security guard has to show a valid BC as a prerequisite to his/her employment.
Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?
If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these lawsuits are without LEGAL merit.
The reality is that these lawsuits are slowly leaking out to the general public (no thanks to the MSM) where they (the public) can form their own opinions as to the uprightness and transparency of the Obama Juggernaut.
You do agree that a well informed public is preferable to an ill informed public — as a buffer against government tyranny?
In view of the above I would be hard pressed to imagine why any American — well seated in our traditions — would not champion such efforts to bring this issue to the public square.
A case could be made that by not clearing these ever mounting doubts, Obama is militating against the good faith of those citizens that have voted for him — and even those that have not supported him.
As a duly elected president he would — as per the constitution (and his own words) — be a servant of ALL the people.
Again, his actions would seem counter productive for a man who had nothing to hide.
Therefore, many of us, not unreasonably, harbor grave doubts as to the probity if not the eligibility of our future President.
The nagging question remains:
Why doesn’t Obama for the sake of unity and national cohesion — even the furtherance of HIS own support — release his vital records?
Thank you for your reply.
STE=Q