No - the case was about the Choctaw tribe’s claim that they could try white men for committing crimes on their land if they were married to a Choctaw woman. So the question was whether the wife was in fact Choctaw. The judge found that because the wife had a white grandfather SHE WAS WHITE. And because she was white, she was an American citizen and not an Indian. And therefore the Choctaws could not prosecute her husband.
The legal argument was her father was the product of an American father and a foreign mother. Because of father was an American citizen, she was an American citizen.
A nice history lesson but completely irrelevant. No one is going to state that American citizenship today can only be passed through the male side. Obama’s mom was an American - he therefore is an American.
Again, you are NOT READING the stuff I am showing you. If it was as you say, why does it end with the "Defendant is remanded into the custody of the Marshall. " ?
The Judge is ruling that the man is not protected by the treaty with the Indians (under the jurisdiction of Indian law instead of Federal law) because he is NOT AN INDIAN. He was only an Indian BY MARRIAGE. Turns out, the woman he was married to was not an Indian (and therefore he was not either because marriage to a non-Indian does not make you an Indian) because her Grandfather was an American Citizen, which made her Father an American citizen which made *HER* an American citizen. :)
If you aren't going to read this stuff closely enough to understand the point, I wonder why I should bother with any evidence at all? Go to page 110 and read the case from the beginning.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-87AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
I am going to entertain no further discussion on the nature of this case with you. I thought "Remanded into the Custody of the Marshall" Made it pretty clear who was being prosecuted and for what. Common sense dictates that if the man wasn't going to be prosecuted by federal law, there was no reason to hold him further, but you seem to understand this case as well as you understand the rest of this issue.
The legal argument was her father was the product of an American father and a foreign mother. Because of father was an American citizen, she was an American citizen.
Yes, we get that. You have repeated it numerous times as if it proves something of consequence. The question does not revolve around whether *SHE* was a citizen, but whether BOTH PARENTS were citizens. When you breed a horse and a Donkey you get a mule. NOT a HORSE, and NOT a DONKEY. It isn't a pure one thing or the other. In the case of citizenship it works exactly the same way. You breed an American with an American, you get a "natural born citizen." You breed Two Kenyans, and you get a "natural born Kenyan." You breed a Kenyan and an American and you get something that doesn't know WHAT nationality it is!
A nice history lesson but completely irrelevant.
It would be a lesson if you were LEARNING anything from it. So Yeah, for you it appears to be completely pointless.
No one is going to state that American citizenship today can only be passed through the male side.
No one *IS* stating that... It is a measurement of your obtuseness that you THINK anyone is saying that. What is being said to you is that "natural born citizens" have always been born to parents of the same nationality, and therefore owe no allegiance to any other government. H3LL! It's right there in the debates on the 14th Amendment!
Obama’s mom was an American - he therefore is an American.
And Kenyan. Which the significance of, seems to be a bridge to far for you.
Tell me he does not have legitimate Kenyan citizenship. (from birth)