What it is about is that birther arguments back then were all over the map and “born in country of two citizen parents” was NOT the words on most people's lips - that supposedly we all should know from civics class.
Why not?
Why out of thousands of posts on dozens of threads discussing 0bama’s eligibility is it so RARE (one example) to find a clear cut “born in country of two citizen parents” criteria?
Because it was, at that time, a rather rare and esoteric view of the law. It was not axiomatic. It was not clear cut. It was not widely known. It was not something that Congress was obviously aware of and traitorous for not following.
That is my point.
People did bring up eligibility before the election - and most arguments had to do with dual citizenship or the notion that 0bama wasn't really born in Hawaii.
Only later did the Vattel argument gain wide acceptance and become something we all knew or should have known and any Congress-member or Elector who didn't raise it as an objection was knowingly a traitor.
You apparently were here,as I was, during the 2008 election.
When was the first time YOU raised the “born in country of two citizen parents” standard?
Where are your posts on the subject from back then - mentioning what you supposedly learned in civics class?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138733/posts
You say...
“Your outrage mirrors my own. Obama is set up to be my president and I, as a verifiable citizen, lack standing on a Constitutional issue? That is, as you say, completely outrageous. Some folks just don’t belong in the legal system. Too bad they have no shame.”
12 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:26:55 AM by so_real
No mention of the “Lincoln Bedroom” standard - no mention that release of the long form was unnecessary because he has a foreign national father and the standard is “born in country of two citizen parents”.
Why were you holding out on us? Why not recount information you learned in High School civics class?
Later in the thread an actual ‘it doesn't matter what the certificate says’ post emerges........
Unfortunately it is another dual citizenship argument - but it does FINALLY touch on the fact that his father's citizenship might be the magic key!!!! But it is again not utilizing the standard that is now supposedly axiomatic - it is arguing that England giving 0bama citizenship at birth is the issue.
“One unique (AFAIK) aspect of Donofrio’s effort is that it does not rest on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. It is predicated on the question of the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which has never been tested, and which is affected by Obama’s father's citizenship status.”
29 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:49:30 PM by Conservatives_Unite
Notice how the poster raises this as a “unique aspect”? Because at the time most birthers were fixated on Hawaii - and if 0bama could prove he was born in Hawaii that would be sufficient - but they were not convinced by the short form.
So when?