| WOW, Buckey, I'm impressed. Very Good. We here have been pointing this out to After-Birthers for about 16 months now, but it's still good to see you trying to help instruct Parsley that there are more than two types of Citizens:
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.The only Federal office that requires the person be a "Natural Born Citizen" is as equally UNIQUE as — under our Constitution — there is only ONE Head of State. There can be only ONE, and by its very nature, the office of President has unique Eligibility requirements as set forth by the Framers. |
When are you going to learn to keep your trap shut lest you cram your big foot right in it? Your proper response should have been, (Psssst: Hey, parsy, what does this sh*t mean?Keep it on the DL.)
And I would have told you, IT BACKS UP WONG, in that Congress can’t decide what a natural born citizen is for purposes of the presidency by passing a law. It takes either an Amendment or a court case LIKE WONG to decide...
But, you never learn...
parsy, who says get the shoe out of mouth, go brush your teeth, and come back, and next time think and ask before you leap, Grasshopper!
There aren’t more than two classes of citizenship. There are only native and naturalized. There are multiple paths to being designated a native citizen. But only ONE of those paths makes one inherently eligible to the presidency. (Born here, two citizen parents) There is doubt as to all of the remaining paths to native citizenship. Thus the stipulation in the FA manual and the statements of Justice Waite in Minor v, Happersett. Thus the need for a clear SCOTUS ruling. IMHO.
I’ve been arguing this point since I joined FR. N-S and I have had multiple discussions on this point.