More vindictive blather in place of thought.
YOUR interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t count for squat. Nor, for that matter, does the interpretation of a newspaper.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation DOES matter, and it is settled law that someone born in the USA is naturally a born citizen.
In matters of the Law, the Supreme Court DOES have the last say, and the large majority of people accept that. “We The People” is your pretense that you speak for the majority will of the USA - in spite of the fact that Obama’s father’s foreignness was well known when a comfortable majority of the US voted for him.
“By that idiot’s logic you also say that the Constitution says a negro is not a full human entitled to basic human rights because the of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a defective interpretation of the Constitution.”
Ever hear of the 14th Amendment? Why was it written? Do you know what an Amendment does?
It is seriously misinterpreted law that anyone born in the US (which is itself a contested status in re Steven Dunham) is “naturally born a citizen”, if you quoted the one Justices side-note in a decision properly.
The Supreme Court has been overruled again and again by the Executive, by the States and by the People. And also by itself. Marbury is not settled law, it is in reality a moot decision. Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.
Why indeed was the 14th written? Why the TENTH?
*YOUR* INITIAL VINDICTIVE BLATHER WAS THAT I had not read the constitution. That was an assertion idiotic. Of course I have! But to you, like any overreaching Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean.