ROFLMAO
Why don't you debate with anything but WKA? Because you can't and you know it. The Virginia citizenship law passed in 1779 was writtten by Jefferson you drone.
If he didn't know what the common law was, I surely don't know who else would have.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You'll notice I took the definition from the site that you received your cut & paste jd from to show it is a valid definition. May I suggest you open a book once in a while. Your cut & paste is lending you no credibility.
Yes, I finally get it. All you DRONES were hatched from pods because you have no concept of natural law, natures law wherein it requires no law to make the ‘natural born’ a citizen; unlike the feudal form of government wherein it requires a man made law to confer citizenship onto a person.
Because we are discussing the legal issue of NBC and that is the main case on it. It is still good law, so I laid that Indiana case on you. Which somebody else pointed out had a 7th Cir. case, Diaz, which called the kids “Natural Born Citizens”, too.
parsy, who says you can’t getthis to court without WKA coming up and WKA will end it for you.
parsy, who appreciates the definition and would give you a candy apple if he had one