Replies

I think it's amusing that a supposed conservative is clinging to 19th century Supreme Court decisions to try to buttress a claim that the 14th amendment doesn't mean what it says. The Constitution isn't irrelevant, but don't try to put Supreme Court decisions on the same level as the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution are just as valid as any of the original 10 on the Bill of Rights or any of the original text -- you know that. I don't misunderstand the 14th amendment. I'm quoting the very links you sent me. Are you saying the students at the Univ of Michigan and the law professor from Arizona misunderstand it? I see no mention of the cases you cite in relevant portions of the paper.

The paper unequivocally states that those born in this country after passage of the 14th are "natural-born citizens". It doesn't say that only those born to two U.S. citizen parents are "natural-born". Why do you think there were papers written about McCain's eligibility and none about Obama's? Because unless he's lying about being born in Hawaii, there's no validity to the claims that he's ineligible. Why did you send me that link to the Michigan law review article if you don't stand by what it says? Maybe you can explain to me why it says that those born in this country are natural-born citizens.

The paper says this specifically:"Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens."

Why are there no buts after this statement? Why are there no mentions of the legislative intent you cite or the early 19th century SCOTUS cases you cite? Is Chin being deliberately misleading?