“You need to be BORN to..... “2”.... Citizen Parents of the USA to become a ....Natural Born Citizen of America!!...........
Mind letting us know where you learned that? It is at odds with the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ according to the Congressional Research Office:”
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 .......(1874)
The Supreme Court clearly established who was a .....“natural born citizen” ......in the case Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case.
The Supreme Court in Minor adopted the..... Laws of Nations.... definition of “natural born citizen” as being a person born in the United States to .....“citizen parents”.......(Notice the “s” Parents!!) –”
this definition does “not” include Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., because his father was “not” a United States Citizen.
Minor Vs. Happersett 1874 has... NEVER... been over turned.....
Congress has attempted to over turn this about 7 times sine 2004..... But is has NEVER been overturned!!
Even some law schools no longer teach this..... They are wrong!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the cite. I'm always leery of relying on quotes...that for some reason....include lots of ellipses...
Let's see what the text of the decision says: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Well, right off the bat they state this case isn't determining that question (and goes on to explain that is because it is satisfactorily known in reference to the plaintiff, a Missouri woman fighting for her right to vote). Somehow you left that critical part buried under ellipses...