I did read what you offered me, and it is clear that you did not understand much of what you quoted from WhiskeyX.
I never said that the phrase "natural born" in Article II is without meaning. Why do you think I quoted those portions of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett that specifically addressed that phrase?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, bud. You can either accept your "For thousands of years,..." quote from WhiskeyX, or you can accept your Federalist Blog rant against English common law, but you can't take both. It's plainly obvious to anyone who is literate in our language that the Constitution does not define "natural born." Since that is the case, the two cases I quoted from analyzed English common law and clarified the meaning of "natural born."
Clearly, you do not like their conclusions. That is fine. Like the author from the Federalist Blog, you are welcome to say that United States v. Wong Kim Ark is "as worthless as a three-dollar bill." You are also welcome to ignore that "natural born" has been previously clarified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor, and that it makes plain that Obama is a "natural born citizen," but it only shows how deceived you have been. My sincerest condolences.
LOL, nice try. BTW, loosen those kneepads and switch FR names for a while. And what cheese would you like with your whine? Would you like a perkins or an Elg, and we might be able to quote a Venus for you as well. Your condescending faux expertise is wearing thin, in every persona with which you present it at FR. Have a pleasant evening ... did you think the name you’re using now would get you extra chances for negatives, troll?