"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!
:)
"I wonder what the founders meant when they required a president to be a natural born citizen?"
Yes, a different approach - although I'm not sure you wonder, it looks like you've already decided what you want to think they meant. What I am discussing is what the law has been held to be by judges, as the Constitution gives the judicial branch this power. In the words of Justice Scalia
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, you're begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
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."
James Madison.
I did answer your post in my previous post, but I want to point out the definitive answer - this thread was not about what the Founders had in mind. It was about cases where the children were called "natural born citizens" and the father was an alien. The question raised was whether the child was deported with the father.
These are legal issues, and there are court rulings that address these issues. And THAT is what the thread is about.