Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
BUT the reasoning that lay behind their finding that he was a citizen was that he fit the criterion for natural born citizen...

BUT, nowhere does he fit the criteria! If he HAD fit the criteria then it would have been ruled so. It WASN'T ruled so and that means the only place he fits the criteria is in the cranial pans of those wishing it WERE so.


I mean...COME ON! You're the presiding SCOTUS judge and you don't find WITH the criteria. Your rulings should confirm the criteria, not contravene the criteria as that ruling did.

505 posted on 03/28/2013 8:00:45 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infay. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Having of all the same rights as a natural born citizen isn't the same thing as
having all of the same privileges of a natural born citizen.

Running for POTUS is a privilege, not a right!

506 posted on 03/28/2013 8:08:43 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infay. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36
BUT, nowhere does he fit the criteria! If he HAD fit the criteria then it would have been ruled so. It WASN'T ruled so and that means the only place he fits the criteria is in the cranial pans of those wishing it WERE so.

They only rule on the question before them. Whether he was a natural born citizen wasn't the question before them. BUT they could certainly find that he fit the criterion for NBC and use that to conclude that he was a citizen, which WAS the question before them. Why do you think they spent so much time discussing what an NBC was? Just to say after all that, "But he's really not one of those, but he is a citizen for some other reasons, which we won't tell you"?

I don't wish it were so--I don't really care much one way or the other. But it IS so, and that's what I do care about.

You're the presiding SCOTUS judge and you don't find WITH the criteria. Your rulings should confirm the criteria, not contravene the criteria as that ruling did.

The ruling didn't contravene the criteria, obviously, or the dissent wouldn't have made the objection it did.

528 posted on 03/28/2013 10:42:34 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson