Dear Tom Foreman,

Are you paid to shill, or are you just a freelancer??

Anybody who puts down others as 'conspracy theorists' without checking out the evidence for the particular subject is either a) a paid part of the disinfo team, b) a robot for TPTB, or c) just plain ignorant.

As for CNN, I don't understand how they are still in business after they were caught faking a story on the first Gulf War when their war correspondent pretended to be under Scud missile attack on the roof of a hotel in Tel Aviv when he was actually in a studio in either Florida or Georgia. And then when Anderson Cooper was caught in front of a Green Screen when pretending to be broadcasting live from Sandy Hook. What does it take to disgrace these people out of business for fraud???

So the libs are arguing for the letter of the constitutional law to be upheld in this instance. Where were they when it came to the nomination of an ineligible presidential candidate in 2008. And again in 2012...

Hypocrisy, thy name is left-winger.

Excellent work, Paul; thanks for all your diligence in this matter. But it is all irrelevant. Obama fell at the first hurdle when he claimed that Barack Obama was his birth father. Case closed right there. Anyone who looks into the matter will discover early and quite clearly that the definition of a 'natural born' citizen that the constitutional Framers were going by when they put it in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, which is the tipoff to this whole thing; keep reading - was from E. de Vattel's definitive tome of the day on such matters, 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law': a 'natural born' citizen is one born on the soil (jus soli) of (in this case, U.S.) citizen parents (jus sanguinis). That's PLURAL. As in BOTH. The whole POINT being to make sure that the person who was as well to become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces had NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.

We got into this mess because the Republican Party did not do its proper job as the opposition party. Why? It is obvious now: because they wanted their OWN ineligible candidates to be able to be put up for the job - and they had found out how difficult it would be to get a constitutional amendment through on the subject: between 2003 and '08 both major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them to get such an amendment going through Congress - and they failed each time even to get it out of committee, such was the sensitivity around the subject. So what did they do? They met in a smoke-filled back room in D.C. and colluded in a conspiracy to defraud the Constitution and the American people. All of which will come out in a court of law, with both parties up on RICO-statute charges, for being criminal enterprises.

Obama is not the only one who is going to go down for this attempt at overthrowing the rule of law in this country, and at nation-hijacking itself.

If so, a) the law in this country is an ass; and b) we constitutionalists need to be all prepared, and the instant that the Usurper declares Martial Law (over whatever orchestrated crisis opportunity), and thus suspends the Constitution, we take back our country: arrest the Usurper, Biden, Pelosi, and whomsoever else were involved in his illegal declaration of eligibility; dissolve the sitting Congress, for failing to do its constitutional duty regarding a rogue executive; clean out the Executive branch of all its would-be nation-hijackers; and hold the officials of both the Democrat and Republican parties under house arrest until order can be restored in the country, at which point they will be charged under RICO statutes for colluding in the commission of the crime of putting up an illegal candidate for the presidency. And all sorts of things will follow from there, in restoring the nation to its constitutional roots - that is, in the RULE OF LAW. Not of men. Otherwise known as arbitrary law. Which is the hallmark of tyrants, down through the ages.

Enough of this crap. No more asking the judicial branch to pretty please look at this issue. It's time to take the bull by the horns, and leave the bullshit behind.

This is all such a nonsense. It is patently obvious to any objective person what the constitutional Framers meant when they decided to require the occupant of that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - to be a "natural born" citizen: because they didn't want anybody in that position, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, to have any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would CERTAINLY be subject to. So at the least, the office holder had to have TWO (in this case, U.S.) CITIZEN PARENTS.

And this take on the matter is borne out by the understood definition of the day, which was taken from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law,' the definitive tome of the day on legal issues. Which Benjamin Franklin, the Framers's elder and respected mentor, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself, is known to have had three copies of, which he could have loaned out to any of them if there was any question in any of their minds about what they were being asked to vote on. Which there was not - as attested to AS WELL by the proposal by Alexander Hamilton at the Convention that the president need only be a 'citizen' - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN , in favor of the more strict 'natural born' requirement.

No, it's OBVIOUS what the Framers meant. What is not quite as obvious is why there is any question in anybody's mind at this point in time. But I would make an intelligent guess: because the Republican Party wanted that stricter birth requirement for that office to be watered down as well as the Democrats, and they did a quid pro quo deal between them on the issue: 'We won't say anything about your candidate if you won't say anything about any candidate we may put up for the job in the future; realizing that between us, we have the Mainstream Media and the judiciary sewn up, so that leaves only the stupid sheeple for us to keep quiet about it. Agreed?' And it was so, in a smoke-filled backroom in Washington. And that's why the Congresscritters on both sides of the political aisle won't touch the issue now with a ten-foot pole.

And is why both parties will go down, as criminal enterprises, under RICO conspiracy statutes, for the dastardly deed. When Obama has justice served on him as well.

As he will. As - he - will. Whether it comes through the work of Zullo. Or not. Because Justice WILL be served. Because this is a just universe. And God will not be mocked.

Thank you for your 'bottom line:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

There is still hope for this nation, as long as enough of its citizenry understand that basic fact.

And act on it.

Thank you, Todd, for this heads-up article. And good on Prof. Tribe for being willing to be honest, rather than merely ideological, on this matter - this terribly important matter, of Obama and his administration trying to become a law unto themselves. As though the U.S.A. were some flunky country ripe for picking by the socialists.

I hope they get the message: Even a liberal law professor says you guys are going too far. So stop your nonsense. Or face the consequences. Americans don't roll over all that easily, when push comes to shove.

This man is to be commended wholeheartedly for his actions. Call it 'Profiles in Courage'.

And let's hope that we can say the same for the judges of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after their Poll. For Truth to prevail in this nation.

Or not.

Excellent point, bob68 - and Richard David Hayes originally.

We've got to go the Full Monty on this.

Excellent point, Wm. The man is not legally the POTUS (not a bona fide "natural born" citizen) - as even the Democrat Party of Hawaii effectively acknowledged, when they refused to certify the constitutionality of his candidacy - ergo, he just needs to be removed, by Oathkeepers, and held for trail, on a whole host of charges.

And let the chips fall where they may. For, either we function under the rule of law. Or we will be governed by the (arbitrary) rule of men. And that sort of governance isn't looking very good these days, is it.