[conservativegramma]

I don't agree with you and believe you are out to lunch on this issue. GET IT????

All of your, shall we say loosely - 'arguments'- sound like liberal talking points right out of a liberal playbook who believe in a 'living and breathing' constitution. (barf)

If you want to take the LIBERAL viewpoint that our Constitution is a LIVING and BREATHING document to be re-interpreted AT WHIM instead of being strictly interpreted AS WRITTEN have at it. I do not think that way, I am an originalist who believes in the constitution as orginally written and is not to be tampered with. Defining Natural Born Citizen

[RummyChick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

[RummyChick]

Here is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, (in a dissenting opinion) who I will assume is MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN YOU ABOUT THE CASE, who disagrees with your assessment of the Judge's decion in the Minor case.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

"particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. But that solution is furnished in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, where the subject received great consideration and it was said:"

GET IT, YET?

This is not settled law. It will cause lengthy debate among scholars, lawyers, and judges. If you are going to go on about PRECEDENT then you need to INCLUDE the Wong Case.