"BTW, if they both focus on "foreign-born citizens from birth" why do defenders of the current WH occupant, such as yourself, continually use them as references when, according to supporters, he was born in Hawaii?"For exactly the reasons I've explained over and over. They made entirely clear -- and no one rebutted them on it -- that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled. Here it is again, since you missed the point all the times before:
"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]
"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]
In our time there have been no papers in the American Legal Literature about whether native-born citizens qualify as Article II natural-citizens. That much was clear and settled long ago, so the literature on presidential eligibility simply pointed it out and no one disagreed.
Again: I'm wrong on that, please cite one 'birther' speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship. I've been doing this a while, so I know to expect a lot ducking, playing dumb, and tries to change the subject. One thing I've learned not to expect is a straight answer to that challenge. I'm not asking whether the issue was in doubt a hundred years ago. I'm not here considering illegal aliens. Please don't bother citing what Breck Long argued in 1916 about a candidate born before the 14'th Amendment. Just show me one current denier of Obama's eligibility who before 2008 argued that native-born citizenship was insufficient.
I wrote:
“Again: I’m wrong on that, please cite”
I make typos all the time, and rarely get beaten up for it. This one is silly-looking enough that I’ll point out that I omitted “If”. Doh!
...please cite one 'birther' speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship.
So what is the point you're trying to make by asking for such a cite? That just because nobody brought it up it isn't relevant?
That dog don't hunt.
So I've got a question...Are you Bill Bryan from thefogbow.com? You even spell Bryan the same way.
The point that is missed is that in the eyes of the Supreme Court, "native-born" or "native" means to be born to citizen parents. Here's Minor's definition ONCE more:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
As such, "native-born" means born to a native citizen, not born to a native land.