So you have no quotes. You simply have your steadfast belief that natural born citizen means ‘any brat dropped on a particular piece of real estate regardless of parentage or allegiance’. I’ve seen presentations like yours that make a solid case for NBC meaning the child of two citizen parents. If the evidence were cut and dried one side or the other could/would offer a quote directly from one of the Framers. But you did not, nor have I seen a direct quote supporting the other side.
Until I see that quote, I will remain convinced that two-parents is what was meant/intended. This is because I actually grasp the concept of divided loyalty. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand, but I have yet to meet a single soil-only person who gets it. Your comments on England made me shake my head. If what you said genuinely represents your full grasp of ‘divided loyalty’ then no wonder you think geographical location is everything. I’d certainly like to believe you have more insight into Obama’s particular situation than that, but so far you’ve provided no indication that you do—and nor has any other soil only proponent. For whatever reason, they either cannot or simply refuse to grasp the concept. In one case it is a mental/psychological limitation, in the other a choice, but in either case it closes the discussion. You can’t, for instance, intelligently discuss diseases w a person who doesn’t grasp the concept of germs. It would be a foregone waste of time.
If ever a soil only person demonstrates true insight into the issue of divided loyalty, and is able to discuss it intelligently and factually in Obama’s case specifically, I will be inclined to listen to whatever else they have to say. As long as they demonstrate zero—literally zero—grasp of the concept, all I can say is sure, go ahead and make it all about the technicality of the physical location of a particular patch of dirt. That is evidently the best you can do, so embrace it w everything you’ve got.
How did the Founders intend to prove who fathered a candidate? Were they just going to take the word of the candidate, the one person who was certainly not a witness to the conception?
Were they just going to take the word of the candidate's mother? What did they intend to do with a case like Obama's, where mom is dead?
Do you really think they intended to create an unworkable standard?
How could you know who fathered any of our past presidents?
“Until I see that quote, I will remain convinced that two-parents is what was meant/intended.”
I cannot prevent someone from believing the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, either. You WILL believe whatever you want.
But the FACT is that NBC was a legal term with a known meaning. That known meaning, as the WKA decision discusses at length, meant anyone born within the border of the US, with a few exceptions: slaves (which were property), Indians (members of independent nations within the USA), diplomats, and children born to an invading army.
You can believe dogs are cats if you wish, but the courts are not insane. They will continue to interpret a legal document by the legal meanings of the terms used. And birthers will go on losing.
It isn’t a Great Conspiracy. The reason all 50 states, including states like Oklahoma, Arizona and Utah, ignore you is because you are wrong. All 535 members of Congress do and will continue to reject your ideas. And every court will reject you as well. Because you are not sane. You do not live in reality. You truly ARE “Fantasywriter”...