We know that persons who are citizens at birth, even though born outside the country with citizen parent or parents, due to various statues do not fall under the same legal umbrella as those born in the US, and their rights and privileges may even depend on which parent was a US citizen. Why can there not be distinctions between classifications of native born citizens?
But please, don't doubt my sincerity. Refute me if you will, but not that.
Most of the arguments you have made on this topic can be reduced to a direction that support's Obama's position.
For example here, a case mounted exclusively on the argument that he can't be natural born because his father, parents, or secondary birth or other citizenship preclude a finding of "natural born" is most likely to be decided by an appellate court in the US as resolved by the subsequent enactment of the 14th Amendment.
Sure, counsel ought to make those arguments but they are not likely to get much weight in a Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court.
And the result of a decision holding that those arguments do not preclude a "natural born" decision would then be used to preclude state filing officers in 2012 from requiring further evidence from Obama as to his eligibility. In other subsequent cases, such a decision would presumably be res judicata barring a plaintiff from seeking to challenge actions by Obama in his claimed capacity.
So when you run into somebody like you making these arguments, you tend to think that person is probably on the other side.
The argument that you can have different sets of citizenship rights that attach to a 14th Amendment Citizen depending on the citizen's parentage or other factors flies in the face of the logic on which the 14th Amendment was adopted.
I don't know of any basis on which to believe that you can have different classes of 14th Amendment Citizens. Neither do you.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the definition for natural born citizen exists outside the Constitution, well after the 14th amendment was ratified. IOW, they had a perfect opportunity to say that the 14th amendment resolved any doubts about natural born citizenship being dependent on the citizenship of the parents. They did not do so.
The argument that you can have different sets of citizenship rights that attach to a 14th Amendment Citizen depending on the citizen's parentage or other factors flies in the face of the logic on which the 14th Amendment was adopted.
This is a poor argument because the 14th amendment only pertains to "Citizens of the United States." The original Constitution did establish 'different sets of citizenship rights,' and the 14th amendment did nothing to change that because it failed to specify applicability to natural born citizenship.