Thanks for the comment and link. However, I stand by my position.
I understand there is a notational difference a regular citizen and a “natural born citizen.” The latter has been clearly defined to be the offspring of two US citizens who was born within the territory of the United States, while the former was merely born in the US with only one or neither parent as a US citizen.
People who object to Obama on this issue demand a distinction that has never been explicitly decided by the US Supreme Court. Practical interpretation has no functional difference between the two types of citizenship whereas the birthers demand a rigid separation. Why? Well, to be honest, due to ideological reasons: because it potentially applies to someone they don’t like. I’d warrant 99.9% of birthers initially thought if someone was born in the US, he or she is automatically an American citizen since that has been the conventional cultural understanding. It is ONLY this issue that has caused them to latch on there being a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
Let’s be honest. Every single birther, especially those who participate on this forum, will believe exactly the OPPOSITE if Obama was actually a conservative and Republican while those screaming at the top of their lungs at an ineligible president will be the liberals and Democrats.
Thus, it’s eminently unfair to lambast those who can’t see the difference between citizen and natural born citizen.
The distinction was never an issue in the past and even if the USSC eventually decides Obama is ineligible and should be removed; the consequences would be disastrous: what could be more retroactive than one’s birth status and do we really want to see him gone on a USSC fiat technicality?
No, Obama has to be allowed to continue what he and his fellow liberals want to accomplish. It is only until after the precipice is reached when the American public will wake up and stop allowing itself to be duped by those wishing to destroy their nation and enslave them and their children to a lifetime of misery. IOW, just as any fool, America needs to hit rock bottom before smarting up.
Where to begin?
First, I object to Obama on the basis that the Constitutional law is unsettled with regard to NBC and I believe a SCOTUS ruling is necessary. Although my personal opinion is that Obama is ineligible, I would absolutely, whole-heartedly accept a decision by the SCOTUS that is contrary to my opinion.
Secondly, I do not hold Obama to a standard different from any other candidate. Unlike most birthers, I also believed McCain was ineligible and wanted a SCOTUS ruling in his case too. (For the record, it would be a travesty of justice if McCain were not eligible given his service and dedication to this country, but justice should be blind.) For me this is about upholding the Constitution, it’s not about finding a way to remove Obama from office. I will stipulate that that is not necessarily true for other birthers.
Third, this controversy has never been an issue before because no other president besides Chester Arthur had a non-citizen parent. Demanding a distinction from the SCOTUS is appropriate, not politically motivated - at least in my case. Other presidents had foreign-born parents, but in every case, the parents became citizens prior to said president’s birth. So the fact that Obama’s eligibility is being challenged has to do with the circumstances of his birth and not his or my political agenda.
Fourth, if the SCOTUS had ruled against Bush in favor of Gore in 2000, the country wouldn’t have been concerned about the potential “disastrous consequences.” They would have expected the rule of law to be followed. Let’s face it, the only reason people don’t want to see Obama removed on a technicality is because they fear riots and retribution from Obama voters. That’s no reason to avoid seeking a ruling on the definition of NBC by the SCOTUS.