[kabar]

I saw that, but you and I are not arguing before the Supreme Court. We have someone in the WH who had a UK citizen father and just presented his alleged birth certificate showing him being born in Hawaii. Obviously, he is the President and has been for more than two years. If the law and precedent are so clear, why was he put on the ballot and elected? Unless he is challenged in the courts and SCOTUS rules, we are both just offering our opinions. In the meantime, Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States.

If the definition of natural born citizen was so cut and dried and a matter of settled law, then why is this guy in the WH? Or why did the Senate feel it was necessary to pass a resolution and get an opinion from two noted constitutional scholars of different poltical persuasions to justify McCain's eligibility, which is also not settled law?

We need this issue resolved, i.e., natural born citizenship needs to be defined specifically as it applies to Article II, Section I of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can do that wih any finality and specificity.

[WhiskeyX]

We need this issue resolved, i.e., natural born citizenship needs to be defined specifically as it applies to Article II, Section I of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can do that wih any finality and specificity.

U.S. Citizens are ultimately responsible for what their delegates to the Federal and State legislatures do and fail to do in their names. Removal of certain people in both parties in the House of Representatives and Senate by election and/or impeachment will encourage the rest to do the right thing. There are some members of SCOTUS who may be liable for removal from office due to ineligibility and/or impeachment.