[parsifal]

Have you ever read Wong? If so, you should know the answer. I don’t think you have enough grasp of Wong, or you would not be asking this question. But I am tired of doing your homework for you.

YOU write something intelligent for a change. If YOU think Wong has some deficiencies, then YOU provide something more than a bald assertion that “Wong has problems.” YOU obviously have a key board. YOU know how to type. So YOU tell me, and the other people on this thread, what it is those acts did and why YOU think Wong failed to address whatever concern YOU think Wong has.

I realize this will require much more mental activity than simply posting cutsie pictures, and making snide comments. Are YOU up to the task?

Jump on out there big boy, and do provide something useful. And, FWIW, snide comments are fun. I do them sometimes. But I also ain’t afraid to analyze a case and lay it out there. Why don’t YOU grow a set and try it on? It’s fun. It is OKAY to poke fun, but you should mix some intelligent discourse in so it is not just a Three Stooges pie throwing episode.

And, something else YOU can do. Get with the other Birther Kiddies, and snipers, and try to earn your Junior Perry Mason Merit Badge. Here’s how YOU can do it.

Take all the crap that you Birthers think you have and set it forth in a logical fashion. If YOU want someone to agree with YOU, then YOU ought to do the courtesy of making it easy to understand. You should not expect other people to do your thinking for YOU and somehow just sort of translate your arguments from Birtherese (which appears to be a subset of primal screams and irrational sobbing mixed with a healthy dose of maniacal blather) to English.

Or, are YOU really so clueless that you think if the Birther issue ever makes it to court, that having a mob of people shouting “Obama’s A LIar” is going to pass for a legal argument.

Now, if YOU don’t understand what I am telling YOU here, then read it a few times until it sinks in.

parsy, who says YOU ought to be ashamed at your lack of intelligent discourse.

[BP2]

> Have you ever read Wong?

You mean where the SCOTUS ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

That ruling, Parsley?

Yeah, I've seen it. I don't think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Further, I don't think that Barack Obama SR had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States," either at University of Hawaii OR at Harvard when he was on leave from the British Empire (near Mombasa) in 1961 ... unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Yet another After-Birther myth de-bunked ...

So, Parsley ...

In Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which addresses citizens and the native born,
did they have prima facie that appeared in the Courtroom? I mean, there are standards
for jurisprudence ... even back at the start of the "Progressive Age" when Judges started
to falsely believe the Constitution was a "breathing document."

DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark's claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as "FACT".
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...

Seriously ... in the case of a BRITISH Subject like Obama, in order for
Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" —
as HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 permits — the "birth certificate" should
at least have the common courtesy to appear in Court. It NEVER has.

As the Certification says very clearly:

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

[mojitojoe]

YOU are turning into a real troll. You need so STFU!

[mojitojoe]

YOU are turning into a real troll. You need to STFU!

[mojitojoe]

Hey dkweed, you can fish and fish and fish. You are NOT getting what you are looking for. Do you think anyone is going to tell you anything relevant that has been found. Are you off your meds again?