“If not me, would you believe what a recent opinion of Appeals Court Justices that Native Born Citizens are distinct from Natural Born Citizens as far as the US Constitution states. Agreed?”
Sure, I’d like to see it. In the citizenship cases I’ve read from the Supreme Court, native born, natural born, and citizen at birth have been used interchangeably within the decision. I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent. It was just a passing phrase that conveyed that the writer wasn’t giving an opinion on whether what he said should be applied to Article II, Section 1.
I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent.
They never did. SCOTUS over the years did not use native born and natural born in the same context. They always have made a distinction between the two...and you are lying. In all Supreme Court cases they never called 'native born' of foreign born citizens and 'natural born' to US citizens born on US soil as the same. They don't mix them up and they never have. I'm being redundant but you can read some more redundancy below.
The 10th Court of Appeals opinion, as of about 2 days, have said in unequivocal words that you are wrong.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Excerpted the key statement -- “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
Shall I interpret for you? ... Let see if you can get it right.