It will be as unconstitutional for Mitt Romney to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States as it was for Obama. Neither are Constitutional natural born Citizens
None other than Harvard's recently appointed Ezra Pound Chair on Common Law has stated that an A2S1C5 nbC is a person born of two United States Citizen-parents within the jurisdiction. I am speaking, of course, of one of the most accomplished "birther" attorneys in the nation: "Mario Apuzzo".
Just look at the irony of this appointment. Here we have one of the leading "birthers" in the nation being appointed to a Harvard Chair on, of all things: English common law!
So when Mario Apuzzo ( now a recognized expert on the English common law) says that he has shown that history and legal precedents do not support the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, people sit up and take notice.
As Mr. Apuzzo further explains:
"I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
'The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;
for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents.'"
Therefore, if Mitt Romney is nominated for the presidency at the RNC convention, I will be forced to file a challenge against his name appearing on the Georgia ballot; as I did against Barack Obama. Nether one is a natural born Citizen.