Ha! Thanks Plumnz. I had decided that my time could be used to more affect than responding to an obfuscator.
While reading decisions provides glimpses of the history I didn’t study as scientist, I have always been in awe of thinkers who discern the heart of the issue. Vattel, in his chapter, Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It, first defines a Country, and then the two categories of citizenship, citizens and natural born citizens. He explains what most of us know, intuitively (which is why it was called natural law) that a person’s allegiances are most likely to be formed after his parents. That is why swearing allegiance, as in when becoming a naturalized citizen, is good enough for every official of our nation except for the presidency, of whom our founders required a natural born citizen. MarkoMalley clearly wanted to obfuscate the point.
As soon as he raised the Naturalization Act of 1789-1790, the game was clear. In 1790, the authors of the act made a flagrant mistake, defining someone of citizen parents but born on foreign soil as a natural born citizen. It is a ploy used frequently by obfuscators. The Act was corrected in 1795, and the term natural born citizen explicitly removed. Some Obots still claim that proved that citizen and natural born citizen were therefore equivalent.
Misleading claims are always a clue. I wonder what people who protect Obama think there will be left of THEIR liberty if Obama is allowed to succeed?
Ping to post #71 on this thread.
Since you did not have the courage to respond to post #66 directly (either to agree or to disagree with its content), you’re welcome to answer the questions I posed in #70.