Replies

Only for Vattel birthers is Ankeny v. Daniels an embarrassment. It is an excellent example of how the courts have dealt with the nbc issue in the past 100 years. You should realize by now that no court, from lowest state court up to SCOTUS is going to give any credence to 19th century congressional debate when determining the definition of nbc. I agree with Justice Scalia when he stated that the least persuasive argument is that made in a Congressional debate because Congressman will say anything to get their bill passed. The opinion in Ankeny is representative of the state of the law regarding nbc in the USA. I now understand that birthers do not follow the rule of law in their fantasy world, but for conservatives the Constitution and the rule of law are paramount and should not be ignored.

For your information, under the precedent of WKA, Marco Rubio is completely eligible to be President or Vice President. He is probably be on the short list of Republican potential VP candidates. Nobody outside the birther fantasy world believes the definition of nbc is governed by an eighteenth century treatise by a Swiss philosopher. Have fun playing with yourself in birther fantasyland and the adult conservatives will be busy at work getting rid of the monstrosity currently residing in the White House.

You should realize by now that no court, from lowest state court up to SCOTUS is going to give any credence to 19th century congressional debate when determining the definition of nbc.

Dude, this is just plain stupidity on your part. It's not uncommon at all for the high court to cite congressional debate from any century, such as in this example:

In light of the ratification debates and the history of the Eleventh Amendment, there is no reason to believe the founders intended the Constitution to preserve a more restricted immunity in the United States.

link to Alden v. Maine

Here's another example:

In light of the floor debate and the Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee hereinafter discussed, it is apparent that Congress was fully aware not merely of the many facts and figures presented to it by witnesses who testified before its Committees, but of the current thinking as to the place of women in the Armed Services. In such a case, we cannot ignore Congress' broad authority conferred by the Constitution to raise and support armies when we are urged to declare [p72] unconstitutional its studied choice of one alternative in preference to another for furthering that goal.

link to Rostker v. Goldberg

For your information, under the precedent of WKA, Marco Rubio is completely eligible to be President or Vice President.

No, under the precedent of WKA, Rubio is a 14th amendment citizen. Obama is NOT. Neither is a natural-born citizen. The precedent we have is that neither our federal nor our state governments will uphold Art. II Sec. I. This is not something to celebrate, unless you simply don't respect the Constitution.

Nobody outside the birther fantasy world believes the definition of nbc is governed by an eighteenth century treatise by a Swiss philosopher.

Nobody except for a long list of Supreme Court justices including Marshall, Miller, Gray, Waite, etc. Yes, we understand that voters are ignornant, apathetic, contemptful and often plain stupid, but that's no excuse for ignoring the plain and clear language of the Supreme Court: all children born in the country to parents who were it citizens. These are the natives, or natural born citizens.

Only for Vattel birthers is Ankeny v. Daniels an embarrassment. It is an excellent example of how the courts have dealt with the nbc issue in the past 100 years. You should realize by now that no court, from lowest state court up to SCOTUS is going to give any credence to 19th century congressional debate when determining the definition of nbc.

The courts are as correct about this issue as they were about Roe v. Wade.