I cannot argue with a person who can’t read English. Sorry. I’ve posted links, I’ve cited large passages, I’ve pointed out that the entire legal world accepts my version...and you just squeeze your eyes shut and refuse to see.
Believe what you want. If you & your friends get to court, you will lose. 100% of the time. The courts have little use for crazy people, which is why your side has lost every time - usually without a hearing, since the courts think you are insane.
Anyone who believes a passage written in 1797 was the source for a phrase found in a document written in 1787 is just insane...or are you a Time Lord? Either way, you’ll get tossed out of court.
Cheap insults are the resort of those who can't justify their failures. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Anyone who believes a passage written in 1797 was the source for a phrase found in a document written in 1787 is just insane...or are you a Time Lord?
The so-called 'passage' wasn't written in 1797. What you're really arguing is that a translation from 1797 is the ONLY way the founders would think a definition of natural citizenship at birth = natural born citizen, which is simply an ignorant argument. Second, if what you think is true, then why did Justice Waite explain that his definition of natural born citizen was "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." In essence you're calling the Supreme Court stupid because of your errant assumption.