>I haven’t said otherwise. <
You most certainly did.
I said:
“The question was about women voting. It declared women citizens jsut as men based upon where they were born.”
to which you replied:
>Sorry, but this wrong. Virginia Minor sued for suffrage because she claimed she was a 14th amendment citizen. <
>”all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Obama does not meet this definition. What part of this do you not understand?? <
I understand that perfectly. I stated it before. I have stated it time and time again. But the point is where you made the distinction incorrectly that Natural Born and Native Born are the same thing. They are not.
As i said the court was ambiguous on this because they were not defining Natural born. They simply stated what had been accepted.
They were deciding on a suffrage issue and how it applied to being a citizen.
>You respond with quantity rather than quality. It just looks like you’re desperately trying to deny the obvious direct quotes I provided by typing up a copious pile of cattle excrement.<’
As it looked to me when you started this. The obvious direct quotes you provided were missing the important parts where the court was stating it was not making a decision on what constitutes the varying degrees of citizenship, but rather the fact that a citizen can vote no matter of male or female.
I seriously think that you missed the point of all of this.
regardless Obama can not be a citizen because his father was Indonesian or Kenyan .. Obama himself never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He only claims to be a Native citizen.
The two are not the same.
No, you quoted me saying the Minor sued for suffrage. Do you not understand that the term suffrage is about a right to vote??
But the point is where you made the distinction incorrectly that Natural Born and Native Born are the same thing.
It's in the verbiage of Waite's definition of natural born citizenship when he says, "These were natives, or natural-born citizens." The criteria for being a native or natural born (used interchangeably) is still birth in the country to citizen parents. This is the Supreme Court's defintion of native born. How would it not be??
As i said the court was ambiguous on this because they were not defining Natural born.
They absolutely were. Look at this full passage. It's very specific and quotes Art II Sec I.
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.
In a matter of SIX sentences, it cites "natural born citizen" three times and says this IS the nomenclature of the founders of the Constitution. There's no ambiguity here. You have certainly offered irrational denial, but that's it.
Obama himself never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He only claims to be a Native citizen.
And as I've shown, Obama is wrong in his claim because the Supreme Court definition of native requires him to be born in the country of citizen parents. We know he does not meet this definition trhough his parents and that he cannot legally prove he was born in the United States.