“SCOTUS ruled that he was a “citizen” - NOT “natural born citizen” and it was ENTIRELY correct, per interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
No, the Court ruled he was a citizen at birth. U.S. laws define citizen at birth as opposed to naturalized citizen. You would have to point out to me what the difference between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ is and where that is legally defined for your position to be correct.”
Correct - citizenship at birth is jus soli. BUT SHOW ME WHERE SCOTUS DEFINED “CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH” TO BE “NATURAL BORN”.
As far as my SPECIFIC interpretation, yes ... it is my opinion, STRONGLY supported by Blackstone and Vattel - whom the Founding Fathers relied upon heavily when formulating law.
But you would be better had your position been STRONGLY supported by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions. Until it is, it is your opinion only.”
Correct - but I STATED IT WAS MY OPINION in my post ...
YOU, OTOH, flat out stated that a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen - YOU INSERTED YOUR OPINION THERE.
YOU would be better had your position been STRONGLY supported by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions. Until it is, it is your opinion only.
“No it would not, which indicates that you haven’t read the Ark decision or any of the applicable laws. If you had you certainly would have read this part: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory...”
So your suggestion that Hitler’s offspring would have been citizens is, of course, ridiculous.”
NO - IT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION - I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS YOUR OPINION - FROM YOUR REMARKS IN THE PREVIOUS POST ...
GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU AT LEAST READ ARK - I DID ...
Show me where the Constitution defines 'natural born' and how it differs from citizen at birth.
Federal law classifies citizenship into two categories: citizen at birth AKA nautual born citizen, and naturalized citizen. There is no third category, regardless of what you may think.
Correct - but I STATED IT WAS MY OPINION in my post ...
An opinion not supported by any law or any Supreme Court decision I'm aware of. Which is why I don't think the Donofrio case will make it to the full court. The idea of creating some sort of higher category of citizenship for those who were born here violates every principle this country was founded on.
YOU, OTOH, flat out stated that a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen - YOU INSERTED YOUR OPINION THERE.
No. I stated existing law and Supreme Court precedent. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous. If not, the the category of natural born citizen doesn't exist because it is not defined anywhere in the Constitution or in law.
NO - IT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION - I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS YOUR OPINION - FROM YOUR REMARKS IN THE PREVIOUS POST ...
More from you lack of understanding of the Ark decision.
GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU AT LEAST READ ARK - I DID ...
Did you?