[Jeff Winston]

All you’ve tried to prove is that Hamilton’s idea was so hare-brained that it didn’t even merit a “formal” presentation. Thus, it was rightly rejected. That you would try to resurrect this rejected idea outside of the due process of Constitutional amendment is repugnant and anti-American.

Oh, come on.

Pretty much everyone in America thinks that "natural born citizen" and "born a citizen" pretty much mean the same thing.

Every single instance that I know of - and there are hundreds throughout US history - in which such terms are used, they're used interchangeably.

That being the case, the burden of proof is on YOU to come up with some hard evidence that there is any difference whatsoever.

Which you have utterly and absolutely failed to do.

Why? Because there is no such evidence.

And now you protest too much. Again, why? Because YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR STUPID-@$$ POSITION. So all you can do is throw slurs and try to attack those who don't hold your stupid-@$$ position as "repugnant" and "anti-American."

It's pretty pitiful.

[Brown Deer]

Pretty much everyone in America thinks that "natural born citizen" and "born a citizen" pretty much mean the same thing.

Really? Which orifice did you pull that nonsense out of?

[Plummz]

Words mean things. Each word carries its own meaning. That is the nature of language. The burden of proof is on you, who claims that a word has no meaning.

There are no extraneous words in the Constitution. It is a precise legal document, carefully constructed. To claim otherwise is a slur on our Founders' literacy.

[Brown Deer]

"I'm no Constitutional scholar..." posted on 03/24/2010 9:36:02 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (6th post at FR)