Replies

Because you have not quoted anything, you have patched words together from different paragraphs like every other liar here that posts this garbage.

I can't believe it.

You make a bald assertion that the Constitution means a particular thing. You make a bald assertion that 4 Supreme Court cases have ruled a particular thing.

You offer absolutely no proof of the claim.

When I point out that not only has the Supreme Court never definitively ruled according to your belief, but that there's some very good reason to suspect, based on the very cases you claim prove your point, that they would rule otherwise, and back it up with not one but MANY quotes from the majority Supreme Court ruling, you claim that I'm "deranged" and haven't quoted anything.

You're perfectly free to argue that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Wong Kim Ark. You're free to argue that, somehow, Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to Presidential eligibility, although I personally think we can't avoid the application.

It's easy to believe that two citizen parents are required for natural born citizen status if all you read is some guy's blog.

the supreme court cases are long, with sometimes subtle and complicated reasoning, and require both time and effort to really understand.

but when you understand wong kim ark, the implications seem pretty clear. honestly, they're clear enough that i could reasonably claim it's pretty well decided - and not the way you want it to be.

but that's not even what i claim. i simply claim that the matter has never been definitively ruled on.

once you understand the court cases themselves, your position can't be defended.

which appears to be clear even to you, of course, since you make no attempt to defend it, except to accuse me, with absolutely zero evidence, and in direct contradiction to the actual words of the u s supreme court, of being a "liar."