[edge919]

Can't read??? You're proving my point for me by posting the contradicting statements. What it cited from Minor does not say in any words that a question is left open. This is the Ankeny court not reading what it cited. It claims a question was left open, but in the footnote, it says the scenario was contemplated RATHER than a even narrower scenario which it reserves for Obama. So which question is left open: the scenario that was CONTEMPLATED or Obama's scenario.

And really, you don't help yourself when you admit that you don't read the parts of someone else's posts that are inconvenient for you. Ankeny ruins its own contradictory claims by citing the actual language from Minor that says:

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Does the court not know what "as distinguished from" means?? Does the court not want to admit that Minor reviewed citizenship for alien children under the Nationality Act of 1790?? And does that court not understand that is undermined its own logic when it said:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

Only six years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Minor court said it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. I can go on and on about the mistakes in Ankeny. Would you like to quote some more passages to keep proving my points for me??

[RummyChick]

Read the sentences again. They do not contradict.

If you don’t understand the basics then I can’t read your convoluted postings about the 14th Amendment.

It is too much trouble when you can’t understand how to read a basic court case.