First, I’d like to congratulate you on becoming a national hero of the “birther” movement — the people who think President Obama is an illegal usurper who needs to be arrested immediately. Consider the stark reality:
- Hillary Clinton (Yale Law School) desperately wanted to win the primaries in ’08, but she never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
- Michael Mukasey was the nation’s top law enforcement officer during the entire ’08 election cycle. It was his responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution, but he never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
- Chief Justice John Roberts has sworn in President Obama twice now, but has never suggested that President Obama was ineligible; and,
- Courts all across this nation — federal and state courts, trial and appellate courts — beginning with Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) — have uniformly rejected the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo on your show. As the Ankeny court put it, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
- However, standing tall against all of these is the distinguished University of Georgia immigration law professor Charles Kuck, who, in a radio show aired just yesterday, openly advised Mr. Apuzzo — the small-time DUI practitioner who has lost every single case in which he’s raised the issue — that his legal arguments are “correct”. In fact, you said several times that his arguments are “correct”. Which means, of course, that the dozens of court decisions that have established a broad national consensus on the issue were all decided wrongly.
Read more here