Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Winston

You are utterly twisted!

We all know that the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an elligibility case, and I have not said that it did, but it has included a definition of “Natural Born” as it would apply in such a case, in four cases that I noted, and in each case it was so stated by the author of the majority opinon.

Get it straight or STFU.


68 posted on 05/30/2011 4:23:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor
We all know that the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an elligibility case, and I have not said that it did, but it has included a definition of “Natural Born” as it would apply in such a case, in four cases that I noted, and in each case it was so stated by the author of the majority opinon.

Ah. We do seem to have a point of agreement. That's good. The point of agreement is this: "the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an [Presidential] elligibility case."

As for what you actually said, let's refer back to... well, what you actually said:

There is no legitimate contention on what Natural Born means.

Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.

I challenged you to produce the statements, from those four Supreme court opinions, that "it means two parents MUST be citizens [for a child to be a natural born citizen.]"

You've produced no such definitive statements from those four cases, and I can't blame you for not doing so, because they don't exist.

I produced MANY quotes from Wong Kim Ark that very definitely imply that you are (or really, the blogger you got the information from is) most likely wrong about the matter. You haven't directly refuted any of these, either (which is fairly impossible anyway, as you'd be arguing against the United States Supreme Court), but have chosen instead to simply call names.

Wouldn't you say that's a fair summary?

69 posted on 05/30/2011 6:24:40 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: editor-surveyor
The point, basically, is this: You can't support your statements, and you can't refute mine. If you can't genuinely demonstrate a definitive claim like, "There is no legitimate contention on what Natural Born means. Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed," then it might be a better idea not to insist upon it, because someone may just call upon you to prove it.
70 posted on 05/30/2011 6:31:14 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson