teedubbya wrote:I think you misread what I said above. I was saying what I understood the issue to be and that it was different than the Indonesian issue the experts on this thread were identifying. By saying it compounded things (added to the issue as I saw it thus making it worse). I didn't say the experts in here shouldn't have an opinion. I love it. Comprehension and context is difficult for you. It gets in they way of your desire to argue just to argue.
But I do think judges and lawyers just get in the way of those of us who have a firm grip on the law of the land. If we say it then it is so. Simple.
No, the issue is your condescension for others, and your love for all things expert-ee. Someone can find an expert that says one thing, and another can find one to the contrary. Just because they have advanced degrees, are are the chair of some school of Constitutional law does not mean that they are correct in their interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, someone with a high school degree, and a functioning knowledge of the Federalist Papers could be correct while the accepted experts are wrong.
Experts are the people who are proven more right than wrong over the long term.
Anyone who has done a cursory read of the history of the naturalization clause knows that the whole point regarding the naturalized birth of a president is such that they have no ties to other countries - there is no hereditary or cultural tie and/or allegiance to a foreign nation. Their first priority is to the United States of America. Mainly because the President is the guy who essentially controls the guys with the treaties and guns: military, diplomats, and law enforcement.
A president with dual citizenship, or one who has revoked his citizenship at any time violates this very basic principle.
Not all that hard to figure out. Doesn't require a lot of legalese.
(Plus, it also gives me an opportunity to jump in and annoy you...which is always fun.)
