You have said nothing to show that the Supreme Court has not already defined “natural born citizen” as “born on US soil to parents who are citizens.” Nothing you or anyone else says or believes can supercede the authority of exist SCOTUS precedent. It’s the law of the land. So unless you can prove that’s not the case, and unless your comments are sequitur to that point, you can and will be ignored.
sourcery wrote: “You have said nothing to show that the Supreme Court has not already defined ‘natural born citizen’ as ‘born on US soil to parents who are citizens.’ Nothing you or anyone else says or believes can supercede the authority of exist SCOTUS precedent. It’s the law of the land. So unless you can prove that’s not the case, and unless your comments are sequitur to that point, you can and will be ignored.”
So that would be no, this isn’t a position you took before you wanted reasons why Obama cannot be president. For all your pretensions to constitutional scholarship, you only started telling the rules that way when you didn’t like who won.
I already quoted three real judges on the bench of real court saying what the applicable precedent is:
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009)
Quite different from when you try cases in your head, isn’t it?