And you keep repeating that false accusation
Our conversation has gone something like this (slight - but only slight - exaggeration for effect):
"Legally, 0bama should have been deported with his dad!"
Discussion as to what the law actually says, and the fact that the law doesn't say that. Stanley Ann could have chosen to take baby Hussein and follow her sort of husband, but no law mandated that.
"Do you love abortion"?
"What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the subject!"
"You didn't say no, so you must love abortion!"
"No, I am pro-life. Lets get back to the subject at hand." More discussion of WKA, etc.
"If you believe jus soli is the law of the land, you must love abortion!"
"No I don't! This is a ridiculous distraction! We're talking about the legalities of 'natural born' and deportation!"
More discussion, some pointing out that like it or not, this is currently accepted law.
"You sure you don't support murdering babies? I think you do!"
And you wonder why I say you're trying to distract. There are good court decisions and bad court decisions, and some flat out wrong and dumb. The way to change it is to change the law or change the Constitution. It is not to deny that the decision was made, deny that it exists, and deny that it is currently accepted law.
"Legally, 0bama should have been deported with his dad!"
Discussion as to what the law actually says, and the fact that the law doesn't say that. Stanley Ann could have chosen to take baby Hussein and follow her sort of husband, but no law mandated that.
"Do you love abortion"?
"What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the subject!"
"You didn't say no, so you must love abortion!"
"No, I am pro-life. Lets get back to the subject at hand." More discussion of WKA, etc.
"If you believe jus soli is the law of the land, you must love abortion!"
"No I don't! This is a ridiculous distraction! We're talking about the legalities of 'natural born' and deportation!" etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------
That's funny. You know what *I* hear when *I* discuss this issue with you guys? It goes something like this....
"I wonder what the founders meant when they required a president to be a natural born citizen?"
Ankeny v. Daniels! NWANKPA v. KISSINGER! Roger v Belli! Alden v. Maine!Rostker v. Goldberg! Minor v. Happersett!
"Excuse me, none of those people were founders."
McKay v. Campbell!Smith v. Alabama !United States v. Rhodes! Garder v. Ward! Perkins v Elg!
I hardly see how the opinions of judges are better at explaining the intentions of the founders than are the founders themselves.
Justice Gray! Justice Marshall! Justice Waite! Justice Gaston! Justice Roberts! Justice Daniels!
"Seriously, you people need to look at the principle involved. "
Wong Kim Ark! Lynch v Clark! The Venus! Slaughter-House Cases! Murray v. The Charming Betsey! Shanks v. Dupont! Elk v Wilkins!
" If these court decisions are infallible, what about Roe v Wade?"
Now you are just being unreasonable and trying to change the subject!
:)