Shouldn't this be important evidence in court? Are they aware of this and using it?
Surely, they have be aware of it. Leahy had it on his .gov Senate website for over two years and it was referenced on FR and other places many times. IIRC, Leahy took it off his site this last spring (?). A shorter version showed up on... blah, www.scrib something or other, can’t remember. But it seemed to have less of the Chertoff and Leahy conversation along the lines of the TWO US CITIZEN PARTENTS “yes, that’s my understanding of it, too.” They had called in then Head of Homeland Security Chertoff to advise them. The six Senators agreed on the definition and then presented it to the Senate who also agreed to the definition with the plural parentS. Many now, who haven’t seen the discussion only want to say it only had to do with McCain and that it’s only a resolution rather than law. Well, excuse me, but Congress agreed to the definition and now they are ignoring their own definition and resolution. Interestingly, Congress only debated the definition for McCain (his being born in Colon and not on the US military base is another subject) but they didn’t hold Obama to the same or any vetting. That’s two branches of our government, the Legislative and the current Executive, who agreed to the definition. Throw in that Judge Thomas said that the SCOTUS was “evading” (meaning sneakily bypassing it rather than just merely haven’t looked into it) Obama’s NBC problems after Obama went to them for his little talk. Well, it might just be me but my tin foil hat is getting itchy.
Ok, found this although I don’t remember the “assumption” in Chertoff’s statement but whatever, Obama’s name is on it so he has some major explaining to do. Also, since this was BEFORE the election then so does Pelosi, Hillary (who was at the six member committee table) and the rest of Congress:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31679913/25337874-Sr511-Technically-a-Dfinition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen