Replies

“Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.”

To this you can add all of the state courts and federal courts below SCOTUS who have opined on the meaning of NBC.

Even the Ankeny Court acknowledged in dicta that the WKA opinion did NOT rule that WKA was an NBC. The Ankeny Court stated that the fact pattern of WKA did not match the claimed fact pattern of Barry’s official “Dreams” narrative. Ankeny only agreed that the lower state court’s mash-up of the 14A with WKA and concluding that Barry was NBC was “persuasive.”

IMO there is NO SCOTUS ruling on whether a candidate like Barry would be NBC in an on-point case (identical or even close in fact pattern) in light of the “evolving” legal case law interpreting the Constitution up to the present moment. Therefore declarative statements that Barry is or is not NBC are premature.

To this you can add all of the state courts and federal courts below SCOTUS who have opined on the meaning of NBC.

This is exactly my point. These subsequent courts are just engaging in a circle jerk where each of their opinions is merely the product of previous court opinions, and they all lead back to Rawle, and other ex post facto lawyers, none of which know what the H*** they are talking about!

The Ankeny Court stated that the fact pattern of WKA did not match the claimed fact pattern of Barry’s official “Dreams” narrative.

I automatically dismiss as willfully misinformed, anyone who cites Ankeny. It is a brain dead stupid ruling that doesn't pass for the quality of work one expects from a Kindergartner.

My understanding is that if your citizenship requires positive law to make it valid, then it isn't "Natural." Barry is a 14th amendment citizen, and only that if you use the most liberal interpretation of the meaning of the 14th amendment.