Replies

No, I asked you what the definition of "natural" is?

Natural means, starting what is listed as number 1,

"1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. ...."

Natural doesn't mean artificial.

The point is Obot, that laws passed by man to make people into citizens is an artificial act - unlike natural. The 14th Amendment is an "artificial act" because it made men into citizens and cannot or could not make anyone into natural born citizens. Only idiots don't see this point, but we see we have tons of idiots here.

Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth.’”

Of course that CRS report is full of Bull and more Bullcrap - since the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the clause you refer to was removed by Congress in the next Naturalization Act in 1795, and was an obvious mistake by them. The CRS report is also lying if it said that the 1790 Naturalization Act defined who are natural born citizens; what you quote is BS.

“Of course that CRS report is full of Bull and more
Natural means, starting what is listed as number 1,

“1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. ....”

Natural doesn’t mean artificial.

The point is Obot, that laws passed by man to make people into citizens is an artificial act - unlike natural. The 14th Amendment is an “artificial act” because it made men into citizens and cannot or could not make anyone into natural born citizens. Only idiots don’t see this point, but we see we have tons of idiots here.”

OK birtherbot, I get your point. Who is it that gets to rule on who is a natural born citizen, then? Is that still within the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States or should we be holding seances and invoking the spirits of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison?

“Bullcrap - since the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the clause you refer to was removed by Congress in the next Naturalization Act in 1795, and was an obvious mistake by them. The CRS report is also lying if it said that the 1790 Naturalization Act defined who are natural born citizens; what you quote is BS.”

Well, if the CRS report is inaccurate, I’m certain that some court eventually will rule against the positions taken in CRS report. After all, it’s only an advisory report for members of Congress to consider.
Best of luck to the birtherbots with the artificial versus natural argument. I’ll be most interested to see how that plays with legislators and judges.

Until that argument is actually adjudicated by a trier of fact, I’ll continue to agree with US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”