[thecodont]

Read it. Read the comments. Here's one:

"And just 2 weeks ago, it was affirmed in the US District Court, Eastern Virginia District, that the 2 parent argument is wrong.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al"

[Red Steel]

Volokh is an OBot from Southern Kal.

[ILS21R]

Anyone born in the U.S., with narrow exceptions (such as that for the children of diplomats) is a U.S. citizen from birth, and therefore a natural-born citizen.

I'm not sure about that. It really doesn't matter anyway. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Obama was born in Kenya.

[patlin]

"I’m not an expert on this area of the law..."

then shut the H-E-double toothpicks up already since you don't know what you are talking about!

[tumblindice]

I’m not giving that blog a hit.

I did look at Tisdale v. Obama. There the court gave short shrift to that pro se case (filed by the plaintiff, a non-lawyer) and, in any event, merely determined that Obama is a citizen ...
then court then extrapolated, or took the quantum leap—presumably taking judicial notice of a `fact’ that has never been proven: that Obama, or whatever his real name is, was born in the United States—that all citizens born in the United States are natural born citizens.
See Article Two of the United States Constitution which makes a clear distinction between “citizens” and “natural born citizens.”
Since he refuses to provide an authentic birth certificate that satisfies the `Best Evidence’ rule, and because his father was a British citizen, “Barack Obama” remains either a turd or a Baby Ruth candy bar on the bottom of the American swimming pool. And since any one of us can just as easily beg the question, I conclude he is the former.

[TigersEye]

Does he have any proof? LOL

[Venturer]

When read in that context any anchor baby whether he speaks English or not is eligible.

[edge919]

The Virginia District court issued a fly-by ruling, based on a typical, superficial misunderstanding of the legal precedents. First, the judge lied. He claimed that it is "well settled that those born in the United States are natural-born citizens." Well, yes the ones who are born in the United States to citizen parents, but NOT all persons born in the United States.

The judge cites Ark: "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States ..." He ignores that there are criteria for being "subject to the jurisdiction" and he ignores that the court says that the 14th amendment (as cited here) does NOT define natural-born citizenship. In true fact, this passage does NOT even employ the term "natural-born citizen."

The judge then cites Perkins v. Elg, but gives no direct quote and then uses a Frankensteined quote from Hollander v. McCain which incorrectly combines citations from Ark and Schneider v. Rusk to presume that 14th amendment citizens are eligible to be president. Schneider v. Rusk cited natural-born as a separate term under "native-born" ... which is true. NBC would be a subset of native born.

Judge Gibney does not say whether the plaintiff cited the unanimous authority and legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett. His superficial review of natural-born citizen fails under its own lack of specificity in applying the term natural-born citizen.