[EnderWiggins]

Oh... one more thing. Assuming you intend to hypocritically quibble that "subject" and "citizen" are not the same thing, the Supreme Court disagrees rather explicitly:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

and

"Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land."

Both quotations are from the decision in Wong Kim Ark

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, indeed, a case in which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue or discussed. As recently as 1963, the Supreme Court hasa affirmed that 14th Amendment citizenship has no effect on the eligibilty requir3ement for the presidency. I see you still cite no common law authrfity for your assdertions. Really, they need to educate you trolls better. It may be that you and your master Soros will destroy our constitutional system which he hates so, but maybe not just yet. If he does it will be a he says, no doubt the omost satisfyng achievmenet of his life, better even than betraying other Jews in 1944. He and the Ci-cago gang seem to be losing the edge on their tool.