“1) Obama has failed to prove he was born in Hawaii...”
For the purposes of this case, he doesn’t need to prove anything other than that he is accepted by the Congress and the Courts as President.
“2) He claims to be a native-born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, which according to Minor v. Happersett and affirmed by Wong Kim Ark, invalidates Obama from being a natural born citizen.”
False. But you go on claiming this, because reason won’t sway you - and you’ll never get inside a court. Those who do will continue to LOSE every time they make this argument - which won’t be often, since the birthers cannot find anyone with standing willing to stand for them.
There are Congressmen who believe Guam can tip over, but not one who believes Obama is ineligible because his father wasn’t a US citizen. Not ONE!
“except if naturalized by birth via the 14th amendment.”
No one is ‘naturalized’ by birth. You are born a citizen, or you are naturalized under laws. Period.
No, he would have to prove his Constitutional eligibility since that is what Lakin is challenging.
There are Congressmen who believe Guam can tip over, but not one who believes Obama is ineligible because his father wasn’t a US citizen. Not ONE!
First, unless you can provide affadavits from each and every Congressperson attesting to this fact, your claim is nonsense. Second, what they do or don't believe doesn't make Obama eligible or not. The Supreme Court gave us a legal definition in at least two different cases, which I mentioned.
No one is ‘naturalized’ by birth. You are born a citizen, or you are naturalized under laws.
Sorry, but this is pure ignorance. If you are a citizen at birth by virtue of statue or Constitutional amendment, you are 'naturalized' as Congress ONLY has the power of naturalization.
Still spreading your debunked lies here, eh?
Disgusting.
To this date, no one has or can prove me wrong.