Originally Posted by Warfish
Except your case is based on a pre-US foreign definition of a term, and the counter is based on U.S. Law (Naturalization Act of 1790) which does not appear to agree with that definition by my reading.
In any event, I just don't see whats to be gained from this avenue, politically speaking.
Not only did you read it wrong, the SCOTUS made decisions after 1790 where Natural Born was cited and an important concept...
The USA did not exist, so an important reference book written less than 20 years earlier certainly would be pertinent. So were texts by Blackstone, Locke, Montesquieu, etc., the Magna Carta as well as the Bible, but you don't believe in that. I'm sure if the framers said Arthur C. Clarke Stan Lee Gene Roddenberry H. G. Wells and Isaac Asimov were influences on teh Constitution you'd buy that.
"Specificly", the Constitution has a an article in it that says what a President must be. Natural born is one qualification. And by its definition historic or contempotrary 0 ain't. Putting it in your vernacular,in the name of PC we collectively bestowed Mjolnir on a malevolent Loki instead of a benevolent Thor.
Another "principled" vote bending over backwards to justify and enable B. Hussein.... *sigh*