Awww, isn’t this cute. Rogers is resorting to namecalling because he can’t handle being slapped down over and over by a so-called “birther.” If you want to talk about “idiots,” then we can start with this Georgia judge who can’t even cite the name of the case accurately - “Arkeny” ... what a moroooon. Guess what. “Arkeny” didn’t declare Obama to be born in the U.S. and it didn’t declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. What kind of “idiot” cites such a case as legal precedent and then relies on dicta that the issuing court admitted was never followed by the court from which it was divined??
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Ankeny was not asked if Obama was born in the USA. The argument - as was the one the Georgia judge was answering - was that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a citizen of the United States and a „natural born citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The Georgia judge used Ankeny (maybe his eyes were blurred from listening to birthers) to show that another state court, faced with the same question, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement to have two citizen parents.
As usual, your problem is that you aren’t capable of finding your ass with both hands, a map & a flashlight.
But this is the Internet, where you can be a legal expert or Emperor of Rome as you wish...
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in
their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and
quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent
that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of
what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall
under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we
need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.”