Replies

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."

SCOTUS agrees with me, rather than with the birthers. It is amusing to me to see the convoluted claims put up by your crowd. If SCOTUS agrees with you, Why did Chief Justice Roberts swear Obama into office? That act alone should tell you that SCOTUS doesn't buy the bogus dicta of Minor you keep throwing out. My prediction is that you will be as successful in 2012 as the birthers were in 2008. Keep making the same arguments and expect the same results.

the Supreme Court says otherwise; that natural-born citizens are only those persons born in the country to citizen parents.

Oh, and where do they say this? Because it sure isn't in Minor v Happersett where they say there is doubt and this case won't resolve that doubt.