Replies

Your capitalization in WKA says Citizen of the United States, not natural born citizen. If you know your constitution, which is doubtful since you don’t even know what a news release is, then you would understand that citizen of the United States only makes one eligible for Congress. Your citation of Ankeny is undermined by that court’s footnote in the decision where they undermine their own argument and acknowledge that, despite the claim of phantom guidance from WKA, no one in WKA is declared to be a natural born citizen and especially not by the parts they cited. Are you ready to go back and try to learn what a news release is, since you don’t understand the Supreme Court’s decision in WKA??

No distinction in the law or via the Supreme Court has ever been made between a 14th Amendment “born citizen” and an Article 2, Section 1 “natural born citizen.” They are one in the same.
If there was such a distinction Barack Hussein Obama could not be President of the United States, and he is the president. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is a constitutional scholar and an originalist/ strict constructionist. He would never have agreed to administer the Oath of Office to an ineligible person.

No distinction in the law or via the Supreme Court has ever been made between a 14th Amendment “born citizen” and an Article 2, Section 1 “natural born citizen.”

Absolutely wrong. This very distinction was made in Wong Kim Ark when it said :

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The above describes a 'born citizen' as being defined by Constitution (via the 14th amendment). Natural born citizen, it says only a couple of sentence later, is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution.

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' "

This distinction is made at the beginning of the decision and upheld in the summary of the decision where it declares no one to be a natural born citizen. You really need to learn to read. You're not going to be successful in life without this ability.

Go to the Supreme Court web site and search the dockets for “Obama - Kagan”....

Why am I not surprised?????????
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

Well, someone finally figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?

The American people mean nothing any longer. It’s all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world.