More bull$$it rhetoric and spin from you…I think I’ll take my chances with Kerchner and Apuzzo over your nonsense….you don’t know much about the Constitution because you keep trying to tell people that you don’t have to be “natural born” in order to be POTUS and further more you don’t know the meaning of “natural born”…study the case law and read what the founders intended once the grandfather clause was up….OBOTS still on the Kool-aid are the only ones who accept the FRAUD as POTUS….with every passing day there are fewer and fewer of you who accept him as POTUS…look at the decline of his poll #’s…I have many friends who are now leaving the DemoCRAP party because of his LIES and refusal to show his pertinent documents….I still say Chavez is your man!!! ____________________________________________________________________ I hope you will take your chances with Apuzzo and Kerchner. Their case has no chance if winning. I have seen his evidence and it has throughly been debunked by real lawyers, not DWI lawyers pretending to know about Constitutional law. I never said that you don’t have to be natural born to be President. I said that the Constitution does not state what the definition of natural born is. The Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case stated in the majority opinion that citizenship in this country comes from English Common law, not De Vattel. All of Apuzzo’s so called arugments were used over 100 years ago by George Collins, and he was the losing lawyer in the Wong Kim case. Your problem for whatever case you possibly may cite that may agrue Vattel there are more cases that say English Common law is where our citizenship laws come from. And De Vattel in his so called law of nations never stated that 2 parents needed to be citizens. He actually stated that the father, or one needed to be a citizen. So when Apuzzo fails, and he will, then we will see where the movement goes next.