But you left out the quotes which I supplied, where the issues of dual allegiance -- which are germane in the Obama situation, but not to a property-rights discussion.
For that reason, the arguments in Lynch are flawed.
One who was not only subject to deportation, but was apparently committing bigamy by marrying Obama's mother.
The Founders didn’t say someone had to live in America to be a NBC. Suppose my parents, after giving birth to me in the USA, and moved to Spain and raised me there, and at 18 I elected to return to the USA. Could I have run for President? Could Elg, in Perkins v Elg have done so?
Red herring.
We're talking about Obama.
Everyone agrees that the President MUST NOT have dual loyalties: and Obama is literally a TEXTBOOK example of the case of an American mother and wayfaring, itinerant, foreign father.
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.
Irrelevant. According to your quote, Steinkauler was born of a US father. Obama wasn't.
The Constitution used the term NBC. There is no doubt but that NBC came from natural born subject, with the only change being in wording to reflect the fact that we have no king. It had an established legal meaning. If the Founders and the states didn’t want that meaning, they should have chosen different words.
That's another red herring, as has been shown repeatedly. Even within Lynch v. Clarke.
Otherwise, the decision wouldn't have quoted Vattel and others ABOUT "dual allegiances".
The only reason he didn't make more of it back then, is nobody thought there would be traitorous or usurping vermin like Ayers and Soros to put up a non-NBC as President; still less that the press and other organs -- hell, even a major party (party ~ "factions" which the Founding Fathers warned against) which would usurp the safeguards of the entire Republic for short-term political/personal gain.
No law or provision of the Constitution can prevent the American public from electing someone who hates America. Rev Wright is undoubtedly constitutionally qualified, yet he hates America with a passion. John Kerry ran for President, and there is no reasonable doubt but that he hates America - yet he was also a NBC.
No, this is another lie. Obaama was never constitutionally eligible in the FIRST place, because his father is a foreigner who was just here temporarily, and committed bigamy. His hatred of America justifies the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
As for J F'ing K, he should have been summarily shot in the 70's, along with Jane Fonda.
Cheers!
” That’s another red herring, as has been shown repeatedly. Even within Lynch v. Clarke. / Otherwise, the decision wouldn’t have quoted Vattel and others ABOUT “dual allegiances”.”
No. Having set forth his reasoning, he then defends it against various objections, including Vattel. Pages 250-254 gives his basic conclusion, and the various references supporting that conclusion.
Page 255 starts with:
“7. Before parting with the subject, I will examine further the grounds on which the citizenship of Julia Lynch was denied.”
Pages 255-259 deal with these objections. Please try to read before you accuse others of lying. But then, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers...