It’s hard for me to digest too. It appears to me that Mario is adding information that defines Natural Born Citizen.
It is customary to present case histories supporting your argument.
They’ve just added a case to support NBC, which was decided in a state court RECENTLY, therefore making it relavant.
(My thoughts: Was this part of the plan?)
Many have said the constitution is “out dated” has been altered through the years. The Indiana case proves it isn’t/hasn’t: thereby, mooting this argument. What say you BP?
One of these tpes of suits was filed in Indiana. Last year, an Indiana Court stated, based on existing Supreme Court dicta in Wong Kim Ark, that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant to the natural-born citizen status of a child born here. That is, left unchallenged, it blows Apuzzo’s argument on that subject out of the water. He is simply filing a supplemental brief to argue why he thinks that Court was in error.
I doubt it will do him any good, but he is entitled to do so.