Replies

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.

You kneepad sycophants of Barry the Bastard boy will float any lie for your little boy-god: "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."

Justice Clarence Thomas stated clearly that the SCOTUS is avoiding the issue ... for fools like you, jamese, that means no case, regardless of merit will be heard so long as the SCOTUS has decided to avoid the issue. I'm so sick of you lying, twisting scum at FR ... the stench is almost, ALMOST, too much. Your ilk are succeeding at one thing at least, you are diminishing the readership at FR and the power of conservative debate at FR. Tell your greasy boss, Axelrod, he is almost as brilliant as Karl Rove, in a demonic sort of way.

Sorry, but this is a faulty assumption based on circular logic. Second, there's no 'fantasy' involved other than your own. I gave specific quotes from the decision. You're moving goalposts and completely dodged the argument. You also make a mistaken assumption that the SCOTUS wouldn't uphold rulings based on standing. This, like your ignorance over what constitutes a news release, it just plain stupidity.