Replies

It is seriously misinterpreted law that anyone born in the US (which is itself a contested status in re Steven Dunham) is “naturally born a citizen”, if you quoted the one Justices side-note in a decision properly.

The Supreme Court has been overruled again and again by the Executive, by the States and by the People. And also by itself. Marbury is not settled law, it is in reality a moot decision. Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.

Why indeed was the 14th written? Why the TENTH?

*YOUR* INITIAL VINDICTIVE BLATHER WAS THAT I had not read the constitution. That was an assertion idiotic. Of course I have! But to you, like any overreaching Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean.

“Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.”

No, John Brown did NOT correct the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, it was settled by amending the Constitution. Feel free to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring the President to have two citizen parents.

However, in WKA, the Court made a powerful argument about what the original intent of the Founders was - that the common law term “natural born subject” provided several hundred years of precedence and was a well established legal phrase, which the Founders adjusted for a Republic and inserted into the Constitution as “Natural Born Citizen”.

As such, having alien parents is no bar to becoming President of the US, provided you are born in the USA. That WAS the Founder’s intent, unless they were stupid in picking their terms. Not Vattel, but the normal language of the law of the day provides the key to understanding it.

The power of WKA’s dicta is based on the power of the reasoning about what the Founder’s intended.

When you pretend it was established law that two citizen parents were required, you ignore history, the law and the Constitution, which includes the 14th Amendment.

It is seriously misinterpreted law that anyone born in the US (which is itself a contested status in re Steven Dunham) is “naturally born a citizen”, if you quoted the one Justices side-note in a decision properly.

The Supreme Court has been overruled again and again by the Executive, by the States and by the People. And also by itself. Marbury is not settled law, it is in reality a moot decision. Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.

Why indeed was the 14th written? Why the TENTH?

*YOUR* INITIAL VINDICTIVE BLATHER WAS THAT I had not read the constitution. That was an assertion idiotic. Of course I have! But to you, like any overreaching Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean.

You might want to take a look at the CURRENT Law of the Land, passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President of the United States.
There is NO difference between a “national and citizen of the United States at birth” and a “natural born citizen” that has ever appeared in the US Code or in any decision of the Supreme Court.
Title 8 of the US Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter 3, Part I, Section 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

“Judge’s ruling, the law means only what you think it should mean...”

These guys can’t be convinced by logic or a correct reading of the various laws or court decisions. They pull things out of context and distort everything else... They’ve either made up their minds to support Obama’s usurption of the presidency as impossible to correct, or are paid trolls covering Obama’s butt, and trying to sow dischord among conservatives.

Other than a short exchange or two, it dosen’t pay to respond to these knuckleheads....it just gives them an excuse to post their nonsense over and over again ad nausium....in short.....

” Dont’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.