[edge919]

For the fiftieth time, no it did not, and you have already had ample evidence presented to you that the court in fact ruled the opposite: that citizen parents are not necessary when the child is born in the USA under US jurisdiction.

For the fifty-first time, it did. What part of "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 ..." do you NOT understand??

[curiosity]

For the fifty-first time, it did. What part of "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 ..."

And what part of "out of context" do you not understand? Why don't you to quote the sentence that comes right after those elipses of yours?

[little jeremiah]

It’s not a question of him or the others not understanding. They don’t care that he’s ineligible.

[Mr Rogers]

I’m still wondering why you quote a poor translation made 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written as a source for the Constitution. The word incorrectly translated NBC in 1797 is ‘indigenous’. So if the Founders were following Vattel, why didn’t they require a “native, or indigenous citizen”?