When you can explain why the status of Slaves and Indians did not comport with your "Black's law" definition, let me know. Till then, you are just making noise.
“Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.”
That’s not what you did. None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle.
You are going to have to make your point more clear. It may make sense to you, but it does not to me.
Article II is all about Allegiance. Born to one Foreign Father and raised by another in a foreign country, Obama's allegiance is unquestionable.
He has none. Eligible he is not. Only idiot Democrats are stupid enough to have thought so in the first place.
Democrats: Party of lies and evil. From Racist Andrew Jackon (making the south safe for slavery) to Idiot Barack/Barry/Steve Hussein Soetoro/Soebarkhoe/Obama, or whatever his name is.
“When you can explain why the status of Slaves and Indians did not comport with your ‘Black’s law’ definition, let me know. Till then, you are just making noise.”
Well, because of reality. The sixth edition of /Blacks/ which I quoted is old enough that the writers and editors could not have foreseen Barack Obama’s candidacy, but no so old that slavery was legal or that American Indians were considered to be a savages of a lesser class.
“You are going to have to make your point more clear. It may make sense to you, but it does not to me.”
I’m O.K. with that. I might be able to explain it terms you would accept, but if not, well, you and I understanding each other is not the center of our concerns. I’ll try: For as long as I (and I’d guess you too) have been alive, all the legal references that spoke to the issue said that native-born citizens qualify as natural-born citizens; no one in our time said different until a certain faction need reasons why Barack Obama cannot really be president.