You said: “WKA did not define NBC, though I admit at first, in 2008 I had thought so. “
You are the second Vattle Birther here to say that to me. What that says to me is that you started off on the right track, then you started hanging with the Vattle Birthers, reading French law, and falling for the Sovereign Citizen Voodoo Interpretation of 14th Amendment. You lost your way, and you lost your ability to read and comprehend simple English language stuff.
Don’t test the truth of that statement by just listening to me. Just start asking yourself why only a handful of lawyers buy into the Vattle Birther stuff, and why people like Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc, say that stuff is nonsense. Ask yourself why FOX News Channel isn’t all over this.
Ask yourself why Jerome Corsi wrote Obama Nation in 2008 and didn’t say a single word about eligibility. ( I know because I have a First Edition copy of the book I bought back then!)
Start asking questions and maybe you can break away from this stuff. If you are seriously curious about my name, I bet you find the answer without going very far.
I think the more curious question to ask is why are you all over this?
You really are utterly hopeless. You should have taken your own advise Squeeky. I dare say I have read dozens and dozens of cases. I could not work with the people I do with out doing a LOT of research.
How about you take your own advise, and start reading some cases other than WKA. You might just learn something.
WKA never applied to a transients. Obama Sr. was certainly a transient.
From the Holding in WKA:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Despite your obsession with Leo, he is correct in stating the following:
This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”,
which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent. While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.”
Maybe you should read the case instead of depending on your girlfriend’s myopic “analysis”.