“No natural born citizen should be asked to take an oath of allegiance since it is naturally known that he is, and not required to receive a US passport. I did not have to pledge an oath to the United States to get my passport.”
Did you apply in 1939?
Currently, no citizen takes an oath of allegiance to get their US passport. There isn’t a passport of “natural born citizens” and another for “questionable loyalty citizenship by birth’.
“The logical inference in this Supreme Court case as taken with the others Supreme Court cases, the phrase usages and explanations make who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen.”
Well, another logical inference is that the traitor wasn’t running for President. In other cases, native born and natural born are used interchangeably, and that seems to be the current consensus of legal authority.
Even if it did, it does not make Kawakita a natural born citizen. Here was a guy with split allegiances and having two citizenships. Was he a natural born citizen as it pertains to natural born citizen clause? Noway. Kawakita was the very essence to why the Constitutional natural born citizen clause exists. Kawakita committed treason because he had split allegiances.
Well, another logical inference is that the traitor wasn’t running for President.
Yes, and if he did and won, he could not constitutionally hold presidential office, but the constitutional safeguard is not infallible check on the treasonous. Alas, Obama being the prime example.
In other cases, native born and natural born are used interchangeably, and that seems to be the current consensus of legal authority.
I don't know how many times it has been explained to you as you still always get it wrong.