Sigh. Nope. As I said we're going to have to agree to disagree because I happen to believe YOU are the one misrepresenting these various cases in your zeal to discount the TWO parents requirement. Minor v. Happersett was just one case, Wong Kim Ark was just one case, I cited more than just those and there is STILL last year's S.R. 511 which reaffirmed that John Sidney McCain was eligible based upon having been born to TWO CITIZENS (PLURAL) on a military base. That was the conclusion of S.R. 511 which OBAMA SIGNED.
So don't start with me about 'misleading' anything. YOU are the one who doesn't look at everything.
Furthermore if you had bothered to read "Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" you would notice that Mario Apuzzo cited the various cases I gave you and then some as to WHY its settled law and precedent that to be natural born requires TWO citizen parents.
It is absolutely absurd that anyone claiming fealty to the constitution would agree to allow anyone to be President who has a non-American Father!
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
Again BOTH of you are wrong. ABSOLUTELY.
The Judge said for the purposes OF THIS CASE..he didnt need to go into the second definition. It was not relevant to the case. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE IN HIS CASE THEREFORE NO DECISION THAT IS PRECEDENT.
How hard is that for you to understand?
In any event, HE DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEVANT.
If you do not understand this concept- try this case
“Despite the problematic aspects of the ordinance, we cannot say that the ordinance is unconstitutional in every application, primarily because the ordinance did not have an unconstitutional effect in the test case that led to the instant suit”
GET IT.
Btw, the Wong case IS AFTER the cases you listed. Surely you know what that means.
The stuff about Mccain is irrelevant.
If you can’t understand the concept of Precedent..then I am not even going to bother with the stuff you are citing about Mccain.