It comes down to this.
All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.
“All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.”
How can that be the case? Did you find fault with my logic and my conclusion that the court in Osborn equated “native” and “natural born”?
If you found no fault in my logic and my conclusion, then you agree that the court in Osborn was saying that “native” and “natural born” are the same and that the two of them are different from “naturalized citizen” in that only the “natural born” (which the court is saying means the same thing as “native”) is eligible to be president.
So how can you now say that “all Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens”?