You say, “It cited and affirmed the exclusive Minor definition of NBC, ” when in fact it said EXACTLY the opposite. Minor v. Harpersett did make a comment on this subject, which some say would disqualify Obama, if applied, but for whatever reason, this recent decision rejects Minor's definition because the court specifically said, “Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise. ” The Arizona judge went with the WKA decision as the precedent setter totally knocking out Minor.
Then you say, “The Ankeny decision admits that there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark. ” When in fact Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana states very clearly, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You're clever, use a word search to find it.
Then you finally say, “The Arizona court simply brushes this aside with a very flawed misinterpretation of the natural-born citizen predent (sic).” A republican appointed judge by the way.
You infer that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOUR flawed thinking is an idiot.
You are either trying to pull my leg or you have a serious comprehension problem. You would do better at joining the “world is coming to an end” faction.
The constitutional question was settled long ago in 1898 when SCOTUS ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that if you are born in this country, no matter what the citizenship status of your parents, you are a natural born citizen with but a few exceptions which Obama doesn’t fall into. The law clarified what the Constitution didn’t specify. The matter is closed as far as reasonable people are concerned.
While I admire your effort, I concluded from past threads it’s no use discussing anything with Edge.
Edge believes the Minor case decided who was an NBC, although the case was actually about whether Virginia Minor was entitled to vote. He also has an unfortunate habit of leaving off part of a quote so that it says the opposite of what the full quote actually said - be forewarned.
““Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens. ” You’re clever, use a word search to find it.”
....and then in the following footnote admitted that WKA didn’t actually say that.
Ankeny is a joke! You should be embarred even quoting it! lolololol