Oh, and let me explain further, for those of you who might think that I am simply being harsh when I call Diogenes, Kerchner and the rest of their ilk, mentally ill.
There is a place where people can simply be wrong about the law, and some issues where reasonable minds can disagree. Whether it takes two citizen parents to make a natural-born citizen (NBC) ain’t one of those places.
Take the birther argument that a 14th amendment citizen is different from an NBC. That was the Birther position in the Ankeny Case. The state court told them “No”, annd cited Wong Kim Ark, (WKA) which clearly said that the 14th amendment simply put pre-existing common law on the subject into the Constitution. Here is the language from WKA:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are the same thing If the Birthers were sane people, and not delusional people, that would be enough. But they ain’t sane.
Then, they cite Vattel, and say,”Well, Vattel says that it takes two citizen parents!” First, sane people would not claim that an old book by a foreigner trumps a SCOTUS decision. And, a sane person would also admit that even Vattel said, in the paragraph following the two-citizen parent stuff,
” Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
But, they ain’t sane. Finally, sane people would not cite Happersett as dispositive on NBC since that court clearly said that it was not necessary for them to do so, not to mention that WKA was decided AFTER Happersett, and did deal with the issue. From Happersett:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In summary, that is 3 or 4 instances where sane, rational people would clearly admit that they were wrong, and not continue to pursue the issue for 16 more years.
The fact that the Birthers continue to do so, is evidence that they are neither sane, nor rational. Like Barney Fife said about Ernest T Bass, “He’s a nut!” Two-citizen parent Birthers are delusional, and mentally ill.
Another gem from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898)
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
The implication would be that the entire lineage would not be citizens because an ancestor, presumed to have been a citizen, was not. The court rejected the insane interpretation.
One is merely a citizen, the other a Natural Born Citizen. That is due to the effect of the 'sovereignty - citizenship' quality of the the word 'jurisdiction' in 'subject to the jurisdiction ...' found in the 14th Amendment you obsessively deny.
You spend more time on that than you do putting forth an actual argument. From you it's "nincompoop" this, and "psychiatric disorder" that.
Maybe that stuff works on some people, but I don't consider it to be an argument in favor of your position. If anything it works against you because it makes you look helpless to defend your position.
That was the Birther position in the Ankeny Case. The state court told them “No”,
Probably one of the courts that says a homosexual man in a dress is a "woman." Modern Courts are a comedy act. They shouldn't be taken seriously. Woe unto people who have to put up with their silly rulings.
Natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are the same thing
Well if they were, we would never had had any natural born citizens until after the 14th amendment came along and created them.
The rest of what you write is strawmanning and circular reasoning. Not worth the trouble to address.