[jamese777]

a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
NONSENSE. Did the 14th amendment REPEAL article II? NO. Does the 14th amendment address “natural born” NO. so Article II STANDS unchanged.

---

There is no case law on the term “natural born citizen” from Article Two Section One. It has never been further defined or explicated by the Supreme Court. So whether citizen at birth and natural born citizen are identical or different is as of this time, undefined in American law.
The legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment have made the terms “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” to be identical in LEGAL interpretation.

[RegulatorCountry]

The legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment have made the terms “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” to be identical in LEGAL interpretation.

Well, by all means, provide evidence of these legal interpretations in the form of statutory law. Let's see what precedent there might be, to support such a contention.

Surely you want to set us all straight, right?

Let's see it, jamese777.

[MHGinTN]

It’s one thing to be an obamanoid sycophant refusing to believe what is posted because you don;t want it to be true. It is quite another thing to be so stupid that you cannot comprehend just how wrong you are and how flawed your repeated assertion when the refutations are posted so often to you. For yet another time, troll, read post #7955 above.

[razbinn]

8,000

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Please point me to the amended Article II, Section 1. I can’t seem to find one.