It’s logically and factually impossible to cite a case’s definition of “natural born citizen” when the text of the opinion of the cited cases nowhere includes the term “natural born citizen.”
sourcery wrote: “It’s logically and factually impossible to cite a case’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ when the text of the opinion of the cited cases nowhere includes the term ‘natural born citizen.’”
First, what case are you talking about? The term ‘natural-born citizen’ appears in the Supreme Court’s opinion deciding WKA, and in the Court of Appeals of Indiana’s opinion deciding Ankeny v. Daniels. You addressed this comment to me, and those are the cases I brought up. Is your issue the hyphen between ‘natural’ and ‘born’? Did I forget some case to which I cited this issue?
Second, useful a tool as string-search is, you should have noticed by now that legal scholarship is harder than that. Many talented people have devoted their life’s work to bringing clarity to fine points of law. Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb-down the material to your comfort level is clearly not working, has not worked, and almost certainly will not work.
When law dictionaries, court decisions, and the peer-reviewed literature all say that you are wrong, maybe it’s time to take a clue. All the more so when you find yourself on the side that has lost over a hundred legal actions and won zero.