Prove it.
I meant you conceded the point in post 105.
You want to call me a Liar? YOU prove it. You haven’t even read the cases, let alone done ANY research. All you got is an ad-hominum attack of “Liar”.
The case speaks for itself. Come up with a better argument than name calling, it makes you look like a little schoolgirl.
“I meant you conceded the point in post 105.”
I did no such thing, unless by “point” you mean something that has no bearing on your larger point. I realize, as does everyone else, that “the right of the soil” and “the right of the father” are two different avenues to citizenship. That’s all was getting at by “conceding” the point that native and traditional natural born are “different”. However different they are going in, though, they are the same coming out. Two paths to one status, that’s all.
“You want to call me a Liar? YOU prove it.”
How, by posting the entire decision? No one would bother reading. I could cherry-pick excerpts, but that would prove nothing, because they never came out and said native born citizens are natural born citizens (because it wasn’t the issue at hand). You’re the one claiming they did assert something (my point being they didn’t say anything either way, since the presidency was none of their concern), so why don’t you prove it? Thus far, you’ve failed, since the part you excerpted doesn’t say anything like you seem to think it says.
“You haven’t even read the cases, let alone done ANY research.”
Considering you cannot possibly have any knowledge of my study habits—apart from the fact that I disagree with you—this sentence does not speak well of your honesty.
“Come up with a better argument than name calling, it makes you look like a little schoolgirl.”
Name-calling is for everyone.