Replies

Whether you think the courts are correct about an issue doesn't matter to anyone but you. But the opinion of SCOTUS and other judges on an issue is of great importance and effects everyone in this country. It is obvious to anyone who has researched the issue of nbc, that if you are a citizen at birth and you do not have to go through a naturalization process (ie: Rubio or McCain) you are a Natural Born Citizen. There are ONLY 2 types of citizens, Natural born and Naturalized. Not a single court in the last 100 years has used the dicta of Minor to define nbc.

I now understand that there are birthers who are now claiming that even though Rubio was born in Florida, he is not a nbc. If that is the case, all they are doing is helping reelect Obama. These crazy theories need to be addressed and put to rest now, so as to not cause problems in next year's election. Will you support the Republican ticket next year if Rubio is on it?

It is obvious to anyone who has researched the issue of nbc, that if you are a citizen at birth and you do not have to go through a naturalization process (ie: Rubio or McCain) you are a Natural Born Citizen.

Except that the Supreme Court says otherwise; that natural-born citizens are only those persons born in the country to citizen parents. Yes, some people are ignorant of the rulings that say this, but the precedent would certainly stand up to specific scrutiny.

There are ONLY 2 types of citizens, Natural born and Naturalized.

Well, no this is false. There are persons who can be citizens at birth who are NOT natural-born citizens. These are persons born under U.S. Code that fit a variety of circumstances. Born anywhere to an unwed mother; born with residency requirements, etc. All you're doing is trying to stretch natural-born citizen to mean something much broader than it actually means. If you have to consider different circumstances such as residency or whether a mother is wed, if the parents were here legally, etc., then you've taken this type of birth citizenship out of the realm of being "natural."

Whether you think the courts are correct about an issue doesn't matter to anyone but you.

It is salient to the point. If YOU admit the court gets things wrong, then your entire argument referencing the courts as the epitome of infallibility is defunct. Now are you going to dodge the question, or are you going to answer it?

Did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade wrongly?

It is obvious to anyone who has researched the issue of nbc, that if you are a citizen at birth and you do not have to go through a naturalization process (ie: Rubio or McCain) you are a Natural Born Citizen. There are ONLY 2 types of citizens, Natural born and Naturalized. Not a single court in the last 100 years has used the dicta of Minor to define nbc.

Perhaps you missed it, but I am attempting to explore a sub-theme of your argument; that the courts are infallible. I'm using the example of Roe v Wade because it has special relevance to conservatives of which the people on this website are assumed to be. Did the Supreme court get this decision wrong?

I now understand that there are birthers who are now claiming that even though Rubio was born in Florida, he is not a nbc. If that is the case, all they are doing is helping reelect Obama. These crazy theories need to be addressed and put to rest now, so as to not cause problems in next year's election. Will you support the Republican ticket next year if Rubio is on it?

The FIRST crazy theory that needs to be addressed is whether or not decent people will accept false rulings by a court, as legitimate. Do you believe Roe v Wade was decided correctly?