[sten]

i know quite a few lawyers myself and we’ve discussed the matter and they agree, the Constitution makes it plain that ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ are specifically different things. additionally, the used of the term coupled with the mentions from minor v happersett along with the federalist papers indicating the founders desire to avoid split allegiances and foreign kings assuming the office, show clearly their meaning and intent.

as for 0abama, there has yet to be a single court ruling on the dozens of cases against 0bama eligibility. none of them make it to discovery... as they’ve all been dismissed without any evidence being submitted. (if 0bama submitted that birth certificate even ONCE, he’d be up on felony forgery charges)

[stars & stripes forever]

From now on, when you bring up this non-issue I’ll refer you to this post. It will save us time responding to you.

P.S. You need to enlarge your circle of lawyers.

[fatnotlazy]

Again, I'm no lawyer, but from what I read about the Minor case, she was denied the right to vote, not because of her citizenship, but because she was female. This case goes back to the late 1800s, years before the right to vote was Constitutionally granted to women. The State of Missouri where Minor resided had a specific law barring women from voting. The Court decided that the state's law against women voting was valid since the US Constitution made no provision as to the right to vote to US citizens. The right was conferred by the states in their constitutions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162