Replies

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.

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.

If any of the fantasy above were true, the Supreme Court of the United States would have taken on any of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached Justices’ conferences seeking Writs of Certiorari.
THERE ARE NO ISSUES OF STANDING AT THE US SUPREME COURT. The Supremes can entertain ANY appeal which they think presents serious Consitutional issues.
The fact that the Supreme Court has rejected 8 different Obama eligibility appeals without comment speaks to the lack of serious constitutional issues being raised in any Obama eligiblity lawsuit.
Who is a natural born citizen is settled law since the ratfication of the 14th Amendment. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot. Barack Obama is a born citizen and he’s been the 44th President of the United States since January 20, 2009.