[Red Steel]

Which proves nothing, because he wasn’t running for President and they were only deciding on citizenship.

You guys can deny deny deny...

However, I destroyed that lame argument in post 224.

Here it is again, to repeat in verbatim:

- - - - - -

To: Tublecane; r9etb

Exactly. They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not.

What you post is "hooey."

The 1939 SCOTUS decision in Perkins v. Elg did not "decided presidential eligibility," but nevertheless the Supreme Court in their holding said she was a natural born citizen because Ms. Elg was born inside the United States and she had citizen ParentS when she was born.

So, you do see where the Supreme Court said Ms. Elg was a natural born citizen?

And "Affirmed"

224 posted on Friday, November 12, 2010 8:47:33 PM by Red Steel

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - - -

As we see again, Ms. Elg was "Affirmed" a natural born citizen and that Wong Kim Ark was NOT.

Exactly. They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not.

[Tublecane]

You have radically different definitions of the terms “destroyed” and “slam dunk” than the rest of us.

[Tublecane]

“As we see again, Ms. Elg was ‘Affirmed’ a natural born citizen and that Wong Kim Ark was NOT.”

Once again, they were not under any compulsion to decide presidential eligibility in the Ark case, and as such their failure to do so is proof of nothing. Furthermore, various quotable passages support the citizen at birth = natural born citizen case, as you know. In order to convince yourself otherswise, you have to bend over backwards and invent a previously non-existent seperate category for the “native born,” which just won’t fly, Elg or no Elg.