I posted a factual statement about the law (BTW, the date of residence for mom starts at 14)
And so
**Current State Department policy reads:**
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship
and further
Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause --
Two United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot.
Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008);(and) Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008).
In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low.
The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.
Please point me to case law that negates these cites, if you would.
Please, use facts or confirmed data and avoid name calling - it demeans FR and makes the name caller look...well, less intelligent than they might otherwise, in fact, be - intelligent, that is..
U.S District Court decisions don't mean squat if not upheld on appeal.