Nice try at twisting the issue to assume as axiomatic that which you are trying to esatblish as the axiom. The truth which you seem to abhor is that the issue of how natural born is defined for the purposes of the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility has not been establish via a SCOTUS ruling. But we understand why you want to try these tricks in order to stroke your ego. But it is deception you’re practicing.
You’ve already posted showing that you understand that the issue of the mother’s age only matters if Obama was born outside the country.
So I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make here.
We all agree that Obama’s mother was a citizen. And it appears that you understand that as a citizen, if she gave birth to a child within the country, that child is a natural-born citizen.
Which, if true, means that the ONLY question to be answered is whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.
The Court does support the concept of anchor babies. But frankly, I should not have brought it up, as it is not applicable in this case. Obama does not gain citizenship as an anchor-baby, he gains citizenship because of the assertion that he was born in this country and one of his parents was a citizen.
I have seen no credible dispute over the citizenship of Obama’s mother, so I fail to see what axiom I am “assuming” (frankly, I am not sure what that means, as the point of an axiom is something that is assumed for the argument, I thinkn the complaint is that I am assuming what I am trying to prove).
I take it as axiomatic that Obama was born, and that he was born to a mother who was a citizen but under 21, and a father who was NOT a citizen.
Given those assumptions, he is a natural born citizen if the birth took place on US soil, and he is NOT a natural born citizen if the birth took place outside of the US.
Is there anything I just said that you disagree with?