Posted on 04/05/2011 12:22:35 AM PDT by The Big Boo
It isn’t a type of citizenship, which is why I sent you a link to USCIS. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement per the U.S. Constitution.
The SCOTUS disagreed. The USCIS doesn't trump what the court said since NBC is defined outside statutory law.
Sorry, but if Leo disagrees with me interpretation, he can sign up and post here. I'm not chasing after some argument that you can't make for yourself.
Couldn't follow your own headline's advice, I see....
I’ll note you could not find fault in the proper deduction of legal reasoning and inapplicability of the 14th amendment to effectuate any change to the permanent meaning of natural born cititzen and instead resorted to stamping your feet.
Good move since it’s best you have...
The Big Boo
“The 14th amendment was the most irresponsibly written amendment in the Constitution.
No, that would be the 16th”
The problem with the 16th amendment was the intention of the author and radifers, not any kind of careless wording, such as is the case of the 14th amendment.
It can be argued that the 14th amendment is also a result of some illconseived intentions(an assertion I would make), but the vast majority of the evils to result form the 14th were in fact,unlike the 16th amendment, wholy unintended.
In terms of irresponsible intentions nether the 16th nor the 14th hold a candle to the 17th. The 17th like the 16th was the result of a compete failure to understand the basic competitive nature of federalism.
The 16th like the 17th was written by people who were among America’s worse generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.