bluecat6 wrote: “We laymen can read a legal ruling from the highest court in the land and understand it just fine thank you.”
Hey, if you are happy with the birther’s record in court, good for you. “The highest court in the land”, as you put it, has spoken to birther issues saying: Denied; Denied; Dismissed; Congratulations, Mr. President; Denied; Dismissed; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied; Welcome to the Court, Madam Justice; Denied; Denied. I tend to prefer legal theories that win in court, but if 100% failure and defeat is just fine with you, who am I to rain on your parade?
bluecat6 wrote: “M v. H lays it out just fine. Quoting other sources is intentional and malicious deflection. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the precise definition of what is in Article II, Section 1. We need nothing secondary to support it. It is clear.”
Nice that your needs are so well met. I was writing about reality, where all the branches of our government recognize that Barack Obama is President of the United States. If you prefer your fantasy world, well, you have a right to self-delusion, and you’d probably be better off not asking me such questions as, “Why not quote the SCOTUS definition?” Obviously you did not actually want the answer.
Apparently you are so uncomprehending that you do not realize the only legal theory being tested in court is whether or not private citizens can sue to enforce Article II constitutional law. I have yet to hear a single ruling on the MERITS of the legal theory being offered regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." I dare say it looks apparent to me that the courts are mortally TERRIFIED of the possibility that they will have to entertain the salient question. As we have yet to see ANY court decision on the salient point, you argument is deceitful at worst and indicative of idiocy at best.
Minor v. Happersett is settled law. Regardless of what is in a dictionary.
Dictionary vs. formal legal ruling by the highest court on the land?
I bet you use Wikipedia too....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
Oh yes, it cites Blacks. And, conveniently, ignores the only Supreme Court Ruling that actually, specifically defined what “natural born Citizen” is.
It is interesting that Blacks uses a term introduced in the 14 Amendment as part of its ‘definition’. So there was no definition prior to the 14th Amendment? How ludicrous is that.
All that is needed:
“...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,...”
Lets get it down the only the critical definition:
“children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”
Simple enough.
Since it is legal fact (regardless of the actual facts) that Obama is the son of British Citizen and thus acquired British Citizenship from birth via British law. His own website says he was born a British Citizen.
Where is his renunciation of that citizenship? You never simply lose your British Subject status. You must formally renounce it via British form RN.
Where is Obama’s form RN?