Replies

"So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?"

"That is the law. Yes."

No it's not. Like Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London and many others
it is a perversion of the Law and nothing else.

"No it's not. Like Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London and many others it is a perversion of the Law and nothing else"

Now see... here is where we almost agree. But not in a way that helps your citizenship claims.

Roe v. Wade is rather obviously (IMHO) bad law, because it bases its reasoning on the assertion that the Constitution contains a "right to privacy." Hell, I think my privacy is very, very important... after all, I'm a libertarian. I would have loved for there to be a right to privacy in the Constitution. But the sad and simple truth is that it is not there. So I call BS on the court decision in Roe v. Wade. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

So, how can I be a hypocrite and turn around and say that the children of aliens are not natural born citizens because the Constitution defines NBC as requiring "two citizen parents?" Even if, like you, I would love for the Constitution to contain that definition, the sad and simple truth is that it is not there. So I call BS on the Birther definition of "natural born citizen." There is no requirement for two citizen parents in the Constitution.

I come down on two different sides from you because I am being consistent. As far as I can tell, you are contradicting yourself.