[odawg]

“You didn’t refer to any such situation. You referred to the courts.”

My post I was referring to (it comes after my first post):

1/25/2016, 1:01:18 PM · 149 of 264
odawg to BuckeyeTexan
“Um, no. Not how the American judicial system works. Try again.”

You mean, an expert on the Constitution is unable, with the wave of his hand, to allay all fears about his eligibility? Releasing all necessary documentation, such as the forms that should have been filed with the United States government by his mother shortly after his birth in Canada? Describe what documentation he has used all his life when a birth certificate, or proof of citizenship, is required? I don’t understand the reluctance. I noticed during the debate he chose to laugh it off with sarcasm and inaccuracies. Never engaged a legal argument, other than “I am eligible”.

[Cboldt]

Producing just his paperwork is not enough. He also needs to cite a legal authority for the proposition that a person born abroad is not naturalized for constitutional purposes. There are many legal authorities that say a person born abroad, who is made a citizen-at-birth, is naturalized (Rogers v. Bellei, Miller v. Albright, Wong Kim Ark, etc.).

Citizenship is a question of both fact and law. I believe the facts are or can be established. What remains is to apply the law.