Since you've demonstrated the froth of your birfy goodness, you've got me convinced that you literally do believe that our judicial system is "ridiculous". Every citizen past, present, and future should have an opinion on every aspect of the Constitution. Foreigners have opinions, too. Certainly the Founders opinions and influences are of interest, but we aren't chained by them. Indeed, some of their opinions and actions were abhorrent. For instance, do you endorse the incident at Tybee Island? Is such behavior a model for us in war?
However, to pretend that all of these opinions carry weight is ridiculous. Those 9 people are tasked with writing the opinions that matter. We all agree to operate by them, in order to maintain a functional society. To paraphrase Jackson, "you've stated your opinion, now let's see you enforce it."
So, again, cite some judicial or legislative authority that supports your assertions? Or retract, and acknowledge that you're merely stating your opinions, and that your 'truth', is not The Truth.
There have been many attempts, and numerous calls from legal experts, to toss the natural born citizen requirement, as it (in these opinions) 'unnecessarily' complicates our legal landscape, while providing little perceived benefit. I don't agree. Have you seen these opinions? You are well read on the subject, aren't you? (in primary sources, not winger blogs)
Bill Ayers did not write Obama's book. You are living in a fantasy land, like a member of some kind of deranged cult who thinks only they have access to the "special knowledge" that no one else seems to see.
Arguing implies that you can provide a counter-argument to the patent truths that the President's Birth Certificate has been legally authenticated by the State of Hawaii. None of your "evidence" says anything at all about the original, just some alleged handling of a certified copy that has made certain suspicious and non-critical thinkers get all wonky.
The birfers got nothing but a hatred of the President, and a willingness to believe anything if it casts him in a bad light.
Rules of evidence can be identical and are often similar. But that wasn't the issue. You were crowing about how the founders were "Republican" and White. It's that second part I found pointless. And I found the first point that ehy were "Republican" fnny due to the complete lack of any familiar policies between that old party and the new verison of it.
Actually, you haven't provided any of that. There is zero "clear evidence" of the meaning of NBC from any of those writers.
1. Why did Jay make his suggestion that only NBC should be Prez? Because it was smart and he didn't want a naturalized person born elsewhere to be Prez. Simple, and not what you claim. It would have been nice if he'd defined it in some fashion, or at least explicity stated he was referring to the English Common Law understanding of it, but that's what the SCOTUS is for. 2. No idea there have been any attempts to amend A2S1. Perhaps they're thinking Rubio or Schwarzenegger. I bet if someone read the Congressional Quarterly, there'd be a hint. As none are needed for the President, I'm curious what they were thinking. If this happened. 3. The President's entire past has not been sealed. Simple.
I know you suggested that I didn't need to answer because the answers were so obviously, but I thought it was wise nonetheless, because the answers you were implying were obviously wrong.
EDIT: My grammar/typo quality goes way down after a beer and a sleeping pill.
Pretending that Vattel's book is the sole and only possible meaning for 'natural-born citizen' is a fetish among the, shall we say, more literate birthers... but it's still a fallacy.
The Constitution means what the Supreme Court SAYS it means, always. Claiming that its meaning is 'clear and obvious' is a way of circumventing the inconvenient fact that one-third of our governmental structure is devoted to interpreting it--especially when those interpretations don't favor your personal opinions.