Credibility?
Does a SINGLE conservative leader agree with you?
Does a SINGLE conservative politician agree with you?
Does a SINGLE legal scholar agree with you?
NO!
You do not get to tell the reasonable and smart people how to argue.
We, instead, get to tell you that you don’t understand what you are talking about.
YOU carry the burden of proof, and you have not met that burden.
You have not even raised much doubt on the matter.
Natural Born means NOT Naturalized, and nothing else.
You wouldn’t know if anyone agrees w me b’c you are unable to grasp the original point. You are arguing w someone else, but definitely not me. If/when you want to argue w me, demonstrate that you at least comprehend my central point. So far, you haven’t come close.
If the Founders had meant the phrase *natural-born* to include everything else, they would have SAID everything else.
Thinking they intended for every legislative Act to list everything NOT included is ludicrous.
They operated on the legal concept known as the Rule of Exclusion, and this Rule is precisely WHY they enumerated powers.
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
You try to take the particulars of the Founding generation and STRETCH them all the way to today.
You BYPASS the fact all the 'court decisions' are founded on the totally FALSE claim that the Wong Kim Ark court proclaimed him a natural-born citizen when that is NOT the case.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Would you care to explain HOW the Wong Kim Ark court determined he was a *natural-born* citizen when that wasn't even the question they'd been asked?
I can do it too!
Mary had a little lamb
Whose fleece was white as snow
Every where that Mary went
The lamb was sure to go
What’s more, mine makes more sense.