I know, and I thought that was what I said. I was being asked to prove that no cases ruled that someone who was not defined by two US citizen parents = NBC could be a NBC.
(Does that seem as awkward a thought as it seems to me?)
You can define a dog as a mammal that is domesticated, can live in the house, has four legs and a tail, and be correct. However, other things can fall into that definition, too. cats, for example. So, a NBC can be defined using Vattel’s definition, but as doubt was introduced that there might be other ways to be a NBC, we can’t know for sure that that is the only definition.
Smacking head with hand—sheesh, that made sense in my mind, but I just didn’t articulate very well. Maybe you can read what I meant and let me off the hook. Off to bed for me!
I do that often on eligibility threads. I won't debate the "2 citizen parent" issue anymore. As far as I'm concerned, those who say I'm wrong can take it up with the gentleman facing the camera.
He knows a thing or two about the Constitution, probably a bit more than the so-called "scholars" who inhabit birther threads.
