|
> Because DICTIONARIES ain’t law. No, but since the phrase “natural-born Citizen” has not been defined by the SCOTUS — ESPECIALLY as it applies to Art II, § 1, Clause 5 — expect them to do so. Thar "ain't" no Case Law to trump in the first place, by gum! And before you drone on and on about Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, which cites Wong Kim Ark v. US -13- times — even touting “According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases” — you AGAIN must understand how Dicey's “Conflict of Laws” applies to Obama’s situation. Dicey said: "A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (emphasis added) What does that mean?! As Obama SR was a natural-born British Subject, he passes his allegiance to the British Crown on TWO generations, regardless of where his children (Obama Jr) & grand-children were born. SO ... IF you hang your hat on the Ankeny opinion, you must do the same to Wong Kim Ark v. US, in which Justice Gray EXTENSIVELY cited Dicey's “Conflict of Laws”. As such — according to your logic and reliance on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark — you've unwittingly cornered yourself into accepting that all three of them are British Subjects:
|
