Replies

“And in the holding for WKA they held that he was born a “citizen” of the United States, but the did not hold that he was born a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.”

It is the same thing. The WKA court spent a lot of time explaining that to you. I think that you simply do not have the inner strength to admit that you have been on a goose chase for the last 12 years or so. And a very silly goose at that. As the Ankeny Court told Birthers years ago, and based on WKA:

Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

Whatsisname Philman finally admitted the truth last nite. He said, [about WKA] - “It’s a bad ruling, just like Roe vs Wade was.”

See, that is a defensible position. Two of the eight justices agreed that it was wrongly decided. BUT it was decided, and it is law. Spouting off cases prior to WKA, or Vattel, or John Jay, or 1868 Congressional debates to make it go away, is unworthy of a reasonable person, and silly to boot. Two citizen parent Birthers are on the level of your average Sovereign Citizen, which is to say pretty low.

I try to be respectful of my elders, but you need to grow up and stop promoting this nonsense.

As far as the substance of this article, I figure the FBI is in bed with the Democrats, so I put nothing past them. However, believing that Obama was not born in the US, is simply another conspiracy theory, and I do not mean anything bad by saying that. It is just not one that I believe in. My BFF used to believe in it, and she wrote some very cogent articles on it. [according to her] You should look them up some time.

A "citizen" of the United States and a "natural born Citizen" of the United States are NOT the same thing. And WKA 1898 in its decision did NOT state that they were the same thing in their holding. You keep making that false statement. Also, reading the actual presidential eligibility clause in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clearly reveals that they are not identically equal. You and your gaseous gaslighting BFF advisor are linguistically and logically challenged, or as is more likely the case, you are deliberately dissembling and engaging in gaslighting about what the founders and framers original intent and understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant, i.e., sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth.

You also keep ignoring a subsequent relevant case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court after WKA (1898), i.e, Perkins v. Elg (1939):

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

Some visual aides for you and Euler Logic Diagram to help you grasp what the adjectives "natural born" mean when placed in front of the noun "citizen". A "citizen" created by Natural Law and not by any man-made law, treaty, act of congress, or constitutional amendment.