I should have checked before I replied to her. It's not a mistake, she's spouting V-dares radical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which has been aped by several anti-immigration groups. It's nonsense. Best ignored as any constitutional challenge to Jindal would be laughed out of court.
Two cases will be conferenced Friday by SCOTUS - Berg’s and Donofrio’s. A third is knockin’ on the door - Wrotnowski’s (from Connecticut. Justice Ginsburg turned him down and the case is now going to Justice Scalia). Fourteen more cases are wending their way towards Washington, D.C.
It appears we may, and I say MAY, finally have a definative explanation for what exactly constitutes a “natural born” citizen.
And being a natural born citizen myself and definitely NOT anti-immigration, there is nothing wrong with loving one’s country and being pro-U.S.Constitution. Without the law, and adherence thereof, we’re toast as a nation. So, legal immigration - yes. Support for an invasion of foreign nationals/illegal aliens - hell no!
Your argument would have more power, be more persuasive, if it is laced with logic rather than insults.