[sten]

i went over this for months, posting time and again to people that would never read a single thing posted.

here, let me do your homework for you:

would FOUR(4) supreme court rulings be enough?
—
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

you should also consider WHY they put that specific language in the Constitution. they weren’t secretive about it. it was to insure the person assuming the office would be, at least by birth, American and would not possibly be a foreign leader/king.

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

[sten]

sorry if i missed the others. please see #24

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3162584/posts?page=24#24

sorry socon... i’m not posting my opinion, just reciting the facts from the founding document.

your lack of understanding and comprehension isn’t my problem.

[SoConPubbie]

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

The Minor v. Happersett does nothing to prove your point if you bring in all the language of the ruling that deals with being Natural Born, instead of just a narrow sliver that you try to use to prove your point:

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

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

Page 88 U. S. 168

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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Nothing in this ruling unambiguously puts to bed the idea that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be 'Natural Born' only that it can be said without a doubt that those who are born in those circumstances are 'Natural Born'.

Maybe you should do your own homework and read through the rulings in question that you use to try and prove your point.

[SoConPubbie]

Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830)

With regards to this ruling, I have scanned through the ruling paying particular attention to all instances of the word 'Natural' and reading in context the points being made.

I can find NOTHING that would establish unambiguously from a point of law, that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born'.

Since you provided this as proof, it lays to you to prove it from this document.

Please support your contention, and disprove mine, by providing the relevant passages from this ruling that establishes unambiguously that it requires 2 US citizen parents at birth to establish the 'Natural Born' status of a child.

If you cannot, it just further establishes your whole argument as 'Smoke and Mirrors'.

[SoConPubbie]

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Your final SCOTUS ruling also fails the test.

Once again, there is an oblique reference to Vattel In this ruling that in no way establishes as a point of constitutional legality the need of a child to have 2 US Citizen parents at point of birth to be considered 'Natural Born'.

Once again, you have substituted your opinion as fact.

There is no constitutional, legal definition of 'Natural Born' that requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to convey the right or property of 'Natural Born' to the child.

If you STILL feel that, in your opinion, I am wrong, please provide the necessary passages for the ruling in question so we can further discuss this issue.