lso, if you read the link to the Lynch case, the judge gives a detailed review of the law concerning natural born subjects and natural born citizens, and concludes:
But in your later reply to me you wrote:
Why, yes - as I’ve pointed out to others elsewhere, it runs nearly 30 pages. That is why I gave the page numbers of my selections, which I chose because they were very explicit.
So, like a typical troll, you're trying to have it both ways.
You were lying through your foul TEETH about "...and concludes" -- since the quote which you said "concludes" is in page 246, but I posted arguments 11 pages LATER which refuted your supposed "conclusion".
When I pointed that out, you tried to paint me as the liar, by ostentatiously declaiming "it runs nearly 30 pages".
The issue isn't the total number of pages: it is that you lied by taking your out-of-context quote from near the middle and knowingly, damnably, falsely insinuating that it was the culmination of the article.
Typical of a leftist troll.
Looking forward to when JR allows the vermin on the BC threads to be banned: ("Enemies foreign and domestic" and all that.)
Cheers!
“You were lying through your foul TEETH about “...and concludes” — since the quote which you said “concludes” is in page 246, but I posted arguments 11 pages LATER which refuted your supposed “conclusion”.”
Sorry you don’t know how to read. Having set forth his argument, he then considers a number of objections to it, including Vattel and others. His essential conclusion that leads to Lynch being a citizen is on page 250:
“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Once that is held, the final decision that she is a citizen and entitled to inherit (next to last page) is inevitable. The later discussion of possible objections does NOT refute the statement on page 250, since that is the basis for the decision.
“You were lying through your foul TEETH...”
No, I’m honest. ANYONE with two or more brain cells who reads Lynch understands that the judge decided she met the qualifications of a NBC. You can toss insults, but you cannot win a case in court because you can’t be bothered to learn what the courts have said for 200+ years.
“Enemies foreign and domestic”
You are the one arguing we should follow a Swiss philosopher instead of what was written in the Constitution. You are the one who wants to reject 200+ years of legal precedence to make up a new rule that the Founders never, ever followed. It takes a twisted person to believe the Founders, writing in 1787, were following the words of a translation made in 1797.
But if anyone doubts me, let them show a single case in US history where paternity overrides birth in the US, excepting those cases mentioned IAW natural born subjects in English common law. What person, because his father is a German citizen, is considered a German citizen and not a US citizen if he was born in the USA - per Vattel?