As we can see, there are no current court cases, including Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana and Tisdale, which have convincingly shown through real historical and legal analysis that any child born in the United States, without any reference to the child’s parents’ citizenship, is a “natural born Citizen.” As hard as the courts continue to try, they just cannot seem to be able to shake off the “natural born Citizen” clause. Maybe it is because the Founders and Framers are still holding on to it for dear life. Hence, the law of nations and traditional U.S. Supreme Court American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which Minor in 1875 directly and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 indirectly confirmed, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, stands. Anyone who wants to change it needs to either go to the U.S. Supreme Court or have a constitutional amendment passed to accomplish that. - Puzo.
Losing arguments from losing lawyers the best you have?
Lawyers like Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz and Leo Donofrio are the reason birthers lose every time in every court.
@Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause February 16, 2012
I would also like to note and offer for consideration that there are no such current contemporary writings that I know of that are being written by anybody of the liberal bent agreeing with the decisions by any of the courts on this issue.
Kind of gives one an idea of what they think of it...they don't even try to defend them as they know how poor such decisions are.
He has created one legal principle or statement by combining the statements and using ellipsis which makes it look as though Hollander itself made the whole statement.
It isn't as if such antics haven't @been seen before.
Why do you always mash those two together?
Miles apart and your ellipsis is just plain wrong.