[BuckeyeTexan]

See my post at #154. When Red pointed me to Rogers v. Bellei, I read it probably 30 times, consulted well-respected attorneys who I personally know and a couple of federal court judges in Dallas about that case. At first, I felt like a hypocrite for changing my position on statutory citizenship after all of these years.

But now I am comfortable with my decision and the logic I followed to get there. Maybe my post will help you. Maybe it won't. But you're not a troll. You may get zotted if you argue too loudly and publicly against Cruz's eligibility on FR, but you are not a troll. I know your position is an honest one, founded on well-researched documention.

You're one of my favorite "jerks" with whom to debate. I hope you stick around.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Consider that the US Constitution did not detail NBC because it was a foregone conclusion at the time of the Constitution (ca. 1783)

To whit; why would we define the term “newborn infant” when everyone knows what that describes?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Hey BT, my old bantering partner!! Got to respectfully disagree with you (I'm sure you're not surprised!)

LOL...I disagree because NBC is au natural, it needs no statutes. Two citizen parents, born on the soil, there is no doubt.

All other circumstances cause doubt. The former leaves no doubt, just what the Founders intended, imo.