FAIL Go read the decision in Minor vs Happersett. At minimum Minor vs Happersett states that there is doubt on whether a person born in the US to non-citizens is a "natural born citizen" Have you actually read the decision? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html With no respect, gastropod
I just read it. It says that you are either a natural-born citizen or created a citizen by naturalization. Only two choices. It also says that if you're born in the US to citizen parents, you are definitely a citizen at birth, otherwise you might not be a citizen. But it doesn't go further than that in saying who is and is not granted citizenship at birth. It doesn't seem to be very helpful to the birther case. I find the photoshopped BC and phony SS number much more interesting allegations. Have these been plausibly debunked?
Much of the 1875 opinion has been scrubbed from the web by the Obama team. Scrubbing even occured at justia.com. Regardless, Minor vs Happersett is the only place the Supreme Court has mentioned a definition of natural-born citizen: "..it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
There is no mention whatsoever of the term "natural born citizen" in Minor vs Happersett Opinion, nor does the decision even allude to any description of it. The only direction in that regard is that the term "citizen" is considered uniform. Still, a birfer like yourself must make shit up otherwise you'd have even less than nothing
Indeed, but a blog which changes the fundamental meaning of a sentence to say something it doesn't right in front of your eyes is never going to be that much worthy an opinion, but does leave James Madison firmly in tact.
What a moron...typical Obama supporter...you apparently can't read. The term "natural born citizen" is used in the decision...either following the link I gave was to complicated for you or you just plain hate truth.
For your information, I don't support Obama. I generally don't like politicians. The only one who has ever said anything that sounds politically reasonable to me is Ron Paul. But then he goes way past far enough to fix things, in my view. Right, so you made a link to the Minor vs Happersett case Opinion to confirm the term 'natural born' , but the Opinion link doesn't mention 'natural born'. You say the Decision does, but you didn't link to the Decision. Youâd be a halfwit if you had half a wit. For a birther like yourself to latch onto comments made in passing within a case which is not determining the definition of natural born citizen anyway, and in which the Judge specifically comments also that it was not necessary to define the term natural born citizen to resolve the case , just shows not only how desperate you are, but the sheer level of ignorance you have about it all. Still, ignorant is all you'll ever be following the conspiracy rantings of a commie russian political headcase and a bunch of wingnuts.
1. you were lying about whether obama needs to proffer evidence that he is eligible to be on the ballot. We do not care what you call it... what your loon mind needs to understand is that when challenged, a candidate will have to proffer some evidence of eligibility. (Unless the plaintiff does it for him.) 2. Lawyers in front of ALJ judges or the judges themselves do not have the power to issue subpoena's? Do you ever prefer truth to lies. Where did you get that b.s. from.
wtf seriously, are you being serious ? I said, before evidence can be given in reply to a challenge, you need a valid challenge . Birthers don't have one. Who said either lawyers or Judge Malihi does not have power to issue subpoenas. What the hell are you talking about? What the lawyers do not have and neither does the judge , is the power to compel testimony. Neither did the Judge order Obama to attend. Is everyone lying to you again? Then I suggest get back on your meds.