Replies

Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.

I believe that the Constitution is clear insofar as it states that a President must be a "natural born citizen" and that he is to be chosen by a majority of Electors. It is all very simple when we just follow the Constitution and allow the Electors to perform their Constitutional function.

The difficulty arises when some people decide that they want to interfere with the Electors. In 2008 and 2012 (and in other times in our history), people who did not like the outcome of the election concocted elaborate new definitions in an effort to force Electors to choose the candidate that they favored. That strategy has never worked and the Electors once again voted for the candidate that they had been pledged to support.

That particular candidate (Obama) cannot run again and so the elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. However, if the next winner is a person who was not born in the United States or had less than two parents who were citizens of the U.S. at the time of his/her birth, we can expect that there will be some people who design new elaborate definitions in an effort to interfere with the Electors. That effort too will fail and once again the new elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. No real harm is ever done and lots o books and tapes get written and sold so it is all good for the economy.

Just stick with the Constitution. It requires only that a candidate be a natural born citizen. The Founders told the Electors as much as the Founders wanted to tell the Electors and that should be enough for all of us. We have been holding these elections for over 200 years and I think that the system works just fine even though the people often elect someone other than the candidate that I prefer. They will not be getting many more chances to thwart me, though. ;-)

people who did not like the outcome of the election concocted elaborate new definitions

Very clever of those "people who did not like the outcome of the election " to have time traveled back to 1817 to concoct their elaborate new definition.

In fact, it looks like they even traveled back to ~1764 when that definition first landed on our continent. (here referred to by James Otis, the man that lit the fires of revolution. Excerpt from his Pamphlet, "The rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved." )

Diabolically clever troublemakers, aren't they?