IOW, the judge in this case held the same as every other judge to look at the supposed ‘two-citizen’ requirement - there is none.
Birthers need to read WKA carefully and consider what it says, rather than what they want it to say (or not say).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
This judge contradicted himself the same way Ankeny did, a decision which was self-admittedly not supported by any legal precedent. The same Supreme Court that said, “Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States ...” (a citation of the 14th amendment) also said, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” How does same provision from the Constitution simulatenously say and not say who are natural-born citizens??
Birthers need to read WKA carefully and consider what it says, rather than what they want it to say (or not say).
Mr. Rogers, you could get every lawyer and judge in the nation to assert that there is no such requirement and all you would prove is that the entire collection are ignorant and stupid.
You are not arguing with ignorant people. You are arguing with people who have researched this for themselves and learned what the original intent of the founders was. I doubt any lawyers or judges have gone to such efforts and therefore they are ignorant, and their opinions do not matter. Sure, their POWER matters, but this is an intellectual debate, not one about strength.
Apart from that, I dispute the validity of the notion that a non-unanimous group of judges dealing with a case not directly related to Article II compliance, ought to be regarded as the last word on the issue. In any case, judges aren't the final say, the people are.