I raised concerns; I did not assert.
Therefore, I may not have to prove. (That is if P -> Q and ~P, then Q may or may not be true; ex: If it rains, then you are wet. It did not rain. [You could still be wet from, say, sprinklers.]
)
The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
So again... what support do you offer for your position?
My personal position, right now, is that legally-speaking Natural Born Citizen
is, at this point, essentially undefined. I think that legally-speaking we cannot get a clear answer form the courts, in part because to do so would damage the position of the elites. (I'm fairly sure Obama isn't a NBC, I strongly suspect McCain isn't, and I have some doubts as to Romney — in short, I think the `08 and `12 presidential elections were engineered to give precedent to ignoring/destroying the NBC requirement.) As I've said, repeatedly, the definition I proffered is the strictest [reasonable] one I've found, not necessarily what I think is the correct definition. (It would, for example, disqualify children of ambassadors — obviously absurd.)
As for support of the strict definition, how about John Bingham, the Father of the 14th Amendment
?
So you claim you have “concerns”. Rather than research, you air them here using strictest definition you can find even though you are not sure if that is the definition you agree with. You call anyone who doesn’t accept your definition (the one you aren’t sure you agree with) names if they do t like you airing your “concern” here (the concern based on a strict definition that even you are not sure you agree with).
Add in lectures on logic and a tantrum about how you refuse to vote for someone who violates your strongly felt principal that you can’t be bothered to research (or if you have, you won’t post or stand behind what you post as what you believe).... You are starting to look a lot like a troll.