Assuming you mean other than NBC and naturalized, because of COURSE there are citizens other than those who are natural born, there are those who are “naturalized” - WHERE did the court say this?
I know you argue by assertion rather than citation, but really! Do you have ANY substantiation for this?
Nowhere do they say that he is NOT a natural born citizen, they say that according to the principle he would be a “natural born subject” and therefore “just as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens.
Way to cowardly back out of a bet with an actual time frame! So much for ‘you lose and I win’; looks like you will be waiting a long long long time before you “win” anything. Myself I just have to wait until November before we “win” at the ballot box.
But way to go puffing yourself up, then deflating in cowardice; while admitting that you have ZERO confidence that this birther stuff will EVER do ANYTHING towards getting 0bambam removed from office.
I wrote...”“The court said that yes there are citizens other than NBC.”
You replied...”Assuming you mean other than NBC and naturalized, because of COURSE there are citizens other than those who are natural born, there are those who are “naturalized” - WHERE did the court say this?”
My bad! I should have written..“The court said that yes there are BORN citizens other than NBC.”
Your response incorrectly frames the issue... I’ve rewritten it for you as... There are two classes of citizens.... those BORN citizens and those naturalized citizens....(Besides that, your response makes no sense as written, and is circular in arguement, so you may wish to edit?)
The born citizen is, under western political thought, divided into two distinct catagories/concepts/definitions .....
Jus Sanginies....that is citizens by blood. No country in the west, and I’ll bet the world, denies citizenship to the children of its citizens. The USA holds that all children of its citizens are themselves citizens. Pretty easy to find agreement here isn’t it? Arguements? None? Good!
Jus Solis.......An extension of the concept of serfdom. That is, citizenship aquired through birth on the land without reference to the condition of it’s parents. The 14th amendment, and Kim Wong Arc codified and affirmed this legal concept in the US. Again an easy concept to grasp and accept isn’t it? Arguements? .... Note that there are restrictions to aquiring citizenship via this route per the 14th Amendment....KWA met those restrictions....
Naturalized citizens are of course, those, not born citizens, who have legally applied for, and been accepted as citizens. Adoptees of the country? Yep, and subject to various restrictions that change from time to time. Again no problemo? Right? Again, Arguements?
The issue before us is then “What is a Natural Born Citizen as identified by the Founders and listed in their written eligibility requirements for the Office of the President?”
The mere fact that this term “Natural Born Citizen” is used only once in the Constitution, in the eligibility requirements for the highest elected Office in the land, is evidence that it is a special word/phrase/concept in the minds of the Framers/Founders.
So what did they mean by the term NBC?
The answer, supported by references by framers like Ben Franklin, is that the Founders used the concept advanced by Vittal in his 1757 work “Law of Nations” that a nation seeks it’s preservation and continuence in the hands of the children born in the country of parents that are themselves citizens.
In essence the founders recognized a quality of born citizen that combined both the concepts of Jus Sanginis and Jus Solis..... In words repeated often both here and in the legal arena as .....
Wait for it....
“Born in the country to 2 citizen parents.”
This is a minimum eligibility requirement for the office of the President, and, if you consider it fairly, a common sense requirement easily met by the vast majority of the population.....and certainly no great burden on a legitimate presidential candidates.
Only one question left....why can’t you see that simple, logical, and common sense concept?
What do you seek/hope to gain by advanceing your denial of that simple definition/concept?