That’s been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
All four of these cases held essentially the sam
e definition: That two citizen parents are require.
But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.
Frasp = grasp
“That’s been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
All four of these cases held essentially the sam
e definition: That two citizen parents are require.
But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.”
Hey thanks I get into heated battles with the Commies, here in Fort Leftyville over their Pets eligibility!
Is there any chance that you, as a lay person, are simply mistaken as to what those cases decided and what the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is under current US law?
That’s been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:
....
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
......
All four of these cases held essentially the same definition: That two citizen parents are require [sic].
But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp [sic] at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.”
I’ll save you the trouble. It’s not there. Nor is the imaginary “Both parents must be citizens for the child to be a NBC” requirement found in the test of the Constitution. Nor in any SCOTUS decision. Nor in the U.S. Code.