According to the Supreme Court, “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.”
You might not agree, but you can hardly expect a lower court to follow Red Steel instead of the Supreme Court.
Hey, I could use some extra money, what does a troll job pay?
How many times a day do you have to service the bamster?
If you have to do Mooshell too, is it a deal breaker or does it pay in extra knee pads so you can do Rahmbo and AxleROD too??
For a poster who said a long time ago that this whole issue was a waste of time, you spend all of yours here.
It must either pay or .............
......bammie sends his love.....after he's done with Reggie.
Oh the they don't have to follow me since the Supreme Court also said,
"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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
And as with Barack Obama, he is a BIG doubt.