You wrote, “How, exactly, are military officers supposed to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies? Give me a scenario where a military officer, without orders from somebody else to use as justification, would protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.”
The military wouldn’t take actions without orders. The phrase “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” applies to these situations:
Civil War
Whiskey Rebellion
Bonus Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army)
It most assuredly does NOT include determining to remove from office someone who won the popular vote, and was certified by Congress without a single dissent and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court!
“Where in there does it state a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States can also be born a British subject?”
Where does it state that it cannot? That is part of my beef with birthers. They act as though there is no other legitimate interpretation of what NBC means, even though it was used in different ways by different people, and the courts have drifted towards using it as synonymous with ‘born in the USA’ - which I believe is the wrong interpretation, but my opinion doesn’t count for squat.
And if the Supreme Court DID decide to take a case, and felt it was 55:45 in favor of the birther definition, they STILL would find in favor of the sitting President. It would require an overwhelming legal case to make them commit to ruling Obama ‘illegal’, and that overwhelming case simply does not exist.
Why take an oath to the Constitution to defend it from domestic enemies if simply following orders is the same thing? If they personally are never to do anything but follow orders, why take an oath to do anything but follow orders - the enlisted oath?
If it is as you say, the officer’s oath can’t possibly mean anything beyond the enlisted oath.
So why is it different? Just a decoration - so an officer can say to the enlisted person, “I agreed to obey in a more flowery way than you did”?
For once I agree with you. Investigations should present facts not opinions. Opine all you want and we will give it the weight it deserves, just like Obama,another Zero....
Please explain why our Founders found it necessary to define themselves to be non-natural born citizens, and the need to provide a grandfather provision for presidential eligibility. No one is questioning that Obama was born after the Constitution was adopted; thus, the grandfather provision does not apply to him.
It would be entirely improper for any court to equate natural born citizen to citizen. If our Founders meant for them to be identical, they would have used the same wording in all cases -- they didn't, because they knew there was a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen, and they believed that difference to be important.
The legal case for ruling Obama is overwhelming. The Constitution guarantees me a republican form of government, and a republican form of government does not ignore clear rules for admending the Constitution. A conspiracy of corrupt and incompetent jurists and legislators to ignore the Constitution is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Obama knows this -- it's why he's spent millions to keep the matter out of court and to obfuscate the matter. The media knows this -- it's why they spin relentlessly for Obama's corrupt regime. Nancy Pelosi knows this -- it's why she declined to note Obama's compliance with the natural born citizenship requirement in her party's certification of his nomination for the presidency. And, you know it -- which is why I regard you as corrupt rather than incompetent.