Nor do you have that basic knowledge. You can live in any fantasy world you choose to live in, and your youtube does not at all prove what you claim. The term "natural born citizen" does not seem to have been precisely defined by any US court review of its constitutional meaning.
So what if the Senate passed a resolution declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen. That resolution might have ended the questioning in 2008, but Senate resolutions do not settle constitutional questions. They're not even laws. That is given in the youtube as proof of the meaning of the term, Lol.
The reality is probably that this question has rarely come up, and the term has not been precisely defined, like many other general terms in the U. S. Constitution.
There are constant questions about second amendment rights before that courts all these years later, because their meanings are not precisely stated in the constitution.
Unless you can show where federal court decisions have precisely defined "natural born citizen", you're just blowing smoke.
We probably agree on the importance of the questions surrounding Obama, but I do not believe that this critical term has precisely defined and affirmed in the federal courts. And if not, it's not settled law. And like any constitutional question, it can be argued from more than one interpretation.
Perhaps it is now time we had a process for checking out POTUS and VP candidates for the future. I suspect it is too late for the issue to make any difference to Obama's inauguration.
That video was intended as a primer, as I said. There is MUCH more you need to familiarize yourself with before you can engage in meaningful discussion. I was just trying to get you pointed in the right direction. There are court cases, law review articles, so much indeed.
I am not claiming anything, buy the way. I have no credentials to make valid claims of any sort. Others do however, and I suggest again, that you familiarize yourself with the facts of law, the scholarship on the subject, past court cases, legislative history, etc.
Until you can speak with a modicum of familiarity with the subject matter, I suggest that it is you, not me, who is the smoke blower here.
But to a few of your specific comments. There have been a few court cases where the subject of “natural born” citizenship has been discussed, but none of these cases are directly on point for the very fundamental reason that this would be a case of first impression. All previous cases have discussed citizenship in general, rather than the very specific type called “natural born”.
The question is: what did this phrase mean to the framers, and on this question there is little doubt: it meant the children of citizens born within the United States. In fact, there was a rather specific notion that natural born citizenship was patrilineal. The citizenship of mothers didn’t count. Isn’t that quaint.
This is a Constitutional matter, and as you probably either know or perhaps could guess, many of the terms used in the Constitution are NOT defined therein. That is because they were terms well understood by the people of the time, and especially by the framers. It’s not our fault if language has drifted and terms fallen from use. We simply cannot throw up our hands and say “duh”, as you would seemingly have us do.
We will find the meanings of these terms in the writings of the time, and they have been found. We know very well what the term “natural born” means, and as you quite rightly point out, the meaning is not to be created by a resolution of Congress, or even by enactment of a statute law.
I want to reiterate that I did not offer up that you-tube presentation as “proof” of anything. I offered it up as a starting point for you as you begin the self-educational process. As an investor, as well as an innately curious person, I always suggest very strongly that individuals “DYOR”.
That’s “do your own research”. Until you have done that, all you have is smoke.