“Methinks you have a problem with consistency.”
Methinks you have a problem with reading.
WKA addresses the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ for half of the decision. The court says the meaning is found in the very similar common law term, known to all the Founders, “natural born subject”. They then spend pages discussing NBS, pointing out that as long as the parents were present ‘in amity’, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens. And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founder’s intent when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
“And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?”
Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, I’m willing to admit that the courts don’t agree with my interpretation. And while it pisses me off, I don’t go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it. If I can, I’ll vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
>>“Methinks you have a problem with consistency.”
>
>Methinks you have a problem with reading.
> [...]
>WKA addresses the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ [...], pointing out that as long as the parents were present ‘in amity’, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens.
I’m going to come at this from
First: “In Amenity” is not the same thing as “In Animosity” which the vast majority of “guest workers are.” {This is only tangential to the discussion.}
Second: You are saying that the child was born in the US; this is itself debatable in the case of Obama; his own grandmother claims to have been present, in Kenya, for his birth whilst the stories of his birth-in-Hawaii claimed different hospitals. Yes it *COULD* have been that his sister, IIRC who it was giving the interview, simply forgot and threw out the name of the first Hawaii hospital that came to mind. Your siding w/ the courts to throw out all eligibility cases based on these and what other investigations of the facts have turned up is irksome. (The equivalent of hearing the stories of Hercules containing widely differing accounts and wondering which, if any, were the truth... and then being forbidden from presenting any evidence contrary to whatever the current storyteller is uttering.)
>And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founder’s intent when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
>And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
>The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
*sigh* - You are agreeing with me that birth-location alone does NOT NECESSARILY make one a NBC.
>>“And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?”
>
>Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, I’m willing to admit that the courts don’t agree with my interpretation.
Really? You were so willing to dismiss out-of-hand the validity of the eligibility-suits because of what the courts were/are doing; does this mean that you are willing to dismiss out-of-hand your own disagreement with the courts (regarding firearms)?
>And while it pisses me off, I don’t go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it.
IOW, “Yep.” [To the above question.]
I haven’t gotten around to doing it yet, as I want to finish School first, but there are several state & city laws which violate my State Constitution that I plan on challenging.
>If I can, I’ll vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
IOW, “it’s not my fault!”