That is one heck of ruling!
It is almost as significant as M v H.
Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.
“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.
I agree, but for some reason the Obama defenders believe it somehow supports their argument. For a look at another interesting case, I advise you to look at: Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879
This case out and out says that a woman is a citizen because her Grandfather was a citizen, which made her father a citizen, which made HER a citizen.(Which made her Husband therefore a Non-Indian.) It also says that a child of a foreigner and a citizen should be handled in exactly the same way.
If I read this correctly, this court would have decided Obama was not even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen."
I have read in various places that citizenship can descend but never ascends. Meaning a child can never pass citizenship ‘up’ to their parent.
Indonesia is where there is a specific citizenship problem. The original furor from the Obama camp was not ‘the birth certificate’. It was charges of being Muslim while being Indonesia. And the blatant lying about the marriage dates of Lolo and SAD is an interesting data point. As if they know that if they were married before Obama turned 6 that it would be s serious problem.