Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.
Perhaps you should read this post, by rxsid before making that claim.
I’ve read that post. It has spread BS for at least the 6+ months that I’ve debated on the birther threads. The problem is that it ignores what the Supreme Court has said, and replaces it with an unnatural interpretation. It ignores the fact that NBC was not found in any translation of Vattel until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written, and that no one following Vattel would have used the phrase. “Natural born” is an odd wording, and it certainly is not derived from ‘natural’ or ‘indigenous’ - the words used by Vattel.
Had they written that the President must be a ‘natural citizen’ or an ‘indigenous citizen’, the case would have been much stronger. But they wrote “natural born citizen”, and I think the Supreme Court has already written at length about what the Founders had in mind when they inserted that phrase into the Constitution.
It also tries to suggest that the French phrase ‘sujets naturels’, translated NBC, means the word “naturels” by itself means NBC. However, the Supreme Court argued that Natural Born SUBJECT, a well known phrase of English common law, is what the Founders were thinking of - and yes, the French phrase ‘natural subjects’ would reasonably translate into NBS for the British, or NBC for America, if the Supreme Court was correct.
It even distorts SR 511, pretending it supports a requirement for two citizen parents when it does so ONLY for someone born OVERSEAS.
That sort of dishonesty may be required for birthers, but it will not cut the mustard when someone steps into court.