“Why is it then that there was zero complaint from anybody when Obama announced for the presidency? Even if he was born in Hawaii, he doesn’t fit your opinion of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.
It isn’t my opinion. It is, and has been, the definition of NBC of all Natural Law jurists, the Founders, and the courts.
There were challenges...after Obama was elected and installed. The courts refused to hear these cases, I believe, because they challenged a sitting President and would have set a precedent of unending presidential challenges. Had Obama been challenged when he became the nominee and before the election he would have lost.
Unlike the Democrats, who challenged McCain and lost, the Republicans didn’t challenge Obama because, apparently because of his race, in an act of cowardice. Look at what we got! A president bound and determined to wreck as much damage to the US as he could. just as the Founders had feared. (And no I do not believe Cruz is of that stripe)After the election and his inauguration, it became a different story.....one of “judicial cowardice” as Justice Clarence Thomas put it, to accept a case disqualifying the newly elected President.
“But, at the time, nobody, absolutely nobody, thought to question his candidacy based on his Kenyan father.”
That’s funny because the Democrats did challenge McCain in 2008. The Senate, including most Democrats issued a “sense of the Senate” saying that all born to 2 American parents were NBC.
If you’re asking me to defend cowardly Republicans?.... forget it!
You keep using the term “Birther” as some sort of disqualifying term. To your regret, people like myself, are just applying the Constitution as it was written, intended, and defined by the courts.
In fact we’re Constitutionalists not “birthers.” People like you are “birthers.” You seem to believe that Article 2 doesn’t exist as a restriction on who can be president, and that anyone who breathes, walks, and talks is eligible as long as you support them....that just isn’t so..... or why else does Article 2 exist? Answer me that!
You keep using the term ‘Birther’ as some sort of disqualifying term. To your regret, people like myself, are just applying the Constitution as it was written, intended, and defined by the courts.
In fact we’re Constitutionalists not “birthers.” People like you are “birthers.” You seem to believe that Article 2 doesn’t exist as a restriction on who can be president, and that anyone who breathes, walks, and talks is eligible as long as you support them....that just isn’t so..... or why else does Article 2 exist? ...
Bears repeating again and again.
You ascribe that to the cowardice of the Republican party -- which certaily applies.
But my question also involves private citizens -- including self-described constitutional experts, such as yourself. Why was there absolutely no concern about the Kenyan father expressed on, for example, FreeRepublic?
I recall plenty of discussion concerning Obama's eligibility regarding his birthplace prior to his election -- but none regarding his NBC status until well after his election.
In fact, I have always suspected that Obama operatives inserted the NBC issue into the birther discussion as a distraction from what might prove to be a successful investigation regarding his birthplace.