It's not what I think. It's what the court said:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."2. You don’t think the Ankeny court thingy applies to Obama, because he is not called “Obama” in the two sentences of the holding.
No, I said the Ankeny court did NOT declare Obama to be eligible. You still have not found ANY citations from this decision to say that he is. There's a reason for that.
3. You don’t get that the holding is on what a NBC is, which includes kids of foreigners, which does not apply to the other person, McCain.
I've shown how this court contradicted itself several times, particularly in undermining its own legal rationale. The one decision that it says provided "guidance" failed to declare its own defendant to be a natural-born citizen. McCain is irrelevant to that.
4. You ignore 99.9% of every case to focus on minor grammatical issues, to try to prove your point.
No, this is simply a deflection you've introduced out of laziness.
5. You repeat the arguments about NBC, that LOST the first time way back in 1844.
None of the arguments I've presented ever "lost." Minor was a unanimous decision: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were the natural born citizens.
6. You give quotes, and leave off the links and websites.
Supreme Court cases are posted at several cites: law.cornell, justia, umkc, etc. I link to everything that is not part of a well-established case.
8. You quote losing arguments from old-timey cases and don’t tell people this stuff has already lost.
Nonsense. This is another one of YOUR lazy mischaracterizations. You have nothing to refute what I've posted, so you invented nonsense. The OP, for example, does NOT consist of so-called "old-timey cases." Second, legal precedent does not expire.
9. You get one sentence from page 655 and another sentence from page 702, cram them together, and try to mislead people.
Sorry, but this is a nonsense whine, plus it's hypocritical. You were quoting the Lynch case and pretending it was controlling precedent in the conclusion of the which would be 30 pages apart. You'd still failed to explain why Gray wrote an extra 32 pages of decision. I'm waiting on that and for a direct quote from Ankeny saying Obama is eligible. Hop to it, lazy squeezy.
10. You do number 9, while skipping all the stuff in between which shows how wrong you are, in pretty simple language.
More nonsense. You IGNORE that I've quoted multiple citations from WKA that all support my point and I've explained in DETAIL why your misinterpretation fails based on the dicta. For example: I gave you about 12 citations of Gray using the term "citizenship at birth" instead of "natural-born citizenship" and shown exactly how these terms differed. You rhetorically stuck your fingers in your ear.
WHY do you work this hard to mess people here up about the law???
NBC is based on neither Constitutional nor statutory law. I'm not messing up any people except those who are too ignorant and stubborn, like yourself, to admit they are wrong, when you clearly are. These decisions are clear. All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natural born citizens. If that messes you up, it's YOUR problem. I'm only here to help fix your problem.
You said, falsely again:”I’m only here to help fix your problem.”
No you aren’t. You are here to mislead people. Plus, you have serious reality issues. You have quoted nothing that backs up one word of your stupid theory. You play some stupid word games and try to act like that is being a lawyer, but you are fooling no one except yourself and the other Vattle Birthers.
With “edge919 law”, Ankeny did not declare Obama eligible. Yet, the Vattle birthers who sued under YOUR theory, lost, and the court said those two little sentences that you Vattle Birthers can’t stand. Sooo, now you want to pretend it didn’t happen. You think if you blabber enough then you will fool people, but you won’t. Not when there are people here to clobber you WITH LOGIC.
If you are a Obot, here punking people, then I feel sorry for you that you spend your time this way. If you are not a Obot, then I feel sorry for you that your mind works, or to say it better “doesn’t work”, the way it does.
But, you have given me another idea for a Internet Article!!! Oh, this will be a great one!!! I will have a picture of a puppy, and underneath it, it will say “See Spot Run!”
Then, I will have a anonymous Vattle Birther (because I will not use your name in case you really are mentally ill or something) and it will say:
Vattle Birther: That doesn’t say the dog is running. How do we know “Spot” is a dog??? Couldn’t Spot be a “spot” on somebody’s clothes??? Couldn’t Spot be a “spot” on Jane’s dress??? On on Dick’s jeans???
Then, rational people will try to explain it to you, while you keep pretending not to get it, and have “you” claiming you have proved them wrong.
Because one silly story will do a better job to show how you are behaving and “thinking”, then 100,000 words quoting the law to somebody who won’t or can’t understand it.
I have already done a “Loop Guru” one based on your way to debate.
1. You don’t think the 14th Amendment applies to most Americans, those who are born here to two citizen parents.
It's not what I think. It's what the court said: In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Now, LOGICALLY, this is where you first go wrong:You said,"It's not what I think. It's what the court said:
Actually, a better way to say is, "It's not what I think. It's what I think the court said."
Because if you look at it that way, you can see the intermediate step between what the court said and your conclusion, is your way of reading and understanding stuff.
Most people, if they come to a conclusion that leads to bad results, or illogical stuff, will start to question the way they are reading and understanding stuff. Like if they read something and come to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation, then they would start questioning their ability to read and comprehend. They would question their own skills.
If such a person had a habit of coming to conclusions that were weird and bizarre, like you do, then there is even more reason they should start to question the way they are reading and understanding things. Especially, when people on your supposed side of the political fence are telling you that your thinking is screwed up real bad. But look at you.
1) The Indiana court is wrong and they are all Hillbilly Hoosiers.
2)The Lynch Clarke judge is wrong.
3)The Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong, or they didn't really say what every body think they said.
4)The Minor judges defined NBC, and the "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" don't count, when everybody else is asking, "Gee, why wouldn't "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" mean they didn't do it.
5)Thinking all the conservative judges and lawyers are in on a conspiracy.
6)The Indiana court didn't say Obama was eligible.
This list could be a lot longer, but do you see the common thing in all of them??? It is the way YOU read and understand things that stands between what the court says, and what YOU CONCLUDE the court is saying.
My father used to ask me, when I blamed someone or something else for my screw ups, "If you stick your tongue in a light socket are you going to blame electricity for what happens???"
Well, with you, I think you would. You'd say, it's not supposed to happen that I fried myself. I'm not a light bulb. What's wrong with that lamp and electricity? And people would try to tell you that you were wrong and pretty stupid to do it, and keep doing it, because you kept getting bad results that didn't feel good. But you would blame the lamp, the house, the wires, the power company, and never see that the thing that wasn't working right, was YOU.