Replies

What in the world do you think the defense’s legal briefs in any Obama eligibility lawsuit are going to use to try to persuade a judge or a court to dismiss a suit or to rule in Obama’s favor?

You said they all specifically believed "statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health," so show one of these briefs. There's no mention in Ankeny of any of these alleged statements. Quit jacking around.

All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don't specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.

All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don’t specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.

You’ve got it wrong, yet again and we’re going around in rhetorical circles. The reason that the citations don’t specifically mention “natural born citizen” is because the term “natural” has been folded in to the terms “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. “Natural” was an 18th century “term of art” that has never been defined in US law, EVER.

As I already posted and as Justices Scalia and Thomas have said: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’”

What part of “...AND ONLY TWO...” don’t you understand?

As much as you hate it but can’t admit it because it destroys your argument, there are only two categories of citizenship for all American citizens: “citizenship at birth” and “naturalized” citizenship. “Citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens” and they can be elected president and vice president and “naturalized citizens” are created by statute law and they cannot be elected president or vice president.

Under the laws of the land, specifically Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401, point “a” of the US Code entitled “Nationals and US Citizens at birth”:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” Now if you can find a different section of the US Code that defines natural born citizen differently from the above, have at it!

THERE IS NO UNITED STATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN, FROM THE TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NO COURT DECISION OR LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS THAT SEPARATES “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” from “CITIZENS AT BIRTH.”

If it isn’t codified in the “U.S. Code” or in the “U.S. Statutes At Large,” it is NOT the law of the land. PERIOD.