[douginthearmy]

I also noticed you did not address my point at all. Yeah, I took logic 101 too, bfd. Mark Levin says he will vote for a soup can over Obama so he clearly is not a supporter. He is also a lawyer with considerable credentials (chief of staff for Ed Meese). He can discuss any topic that he chooses and the fact that he completely dismisses the birther issue is relevant.

Tables have tops. We could call these tops, tops of tables. Each table has only one top. Each top only belongs to one table. According to birther logic, each top must have 2 tables.

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.

1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.

Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.

[Josephat]

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.

1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.

Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.

Come on. You’re kidding, right? No one can be that dense.

[MMaschin]

1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.
1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.
Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.


You do know that your argument makes no sense in the context of a legal argument?

When construing a Constitutional term-of-art such as 'natural born Citizen', the court must determine it's intended meaning at the time it was created. That is what the court mean then it says something like this, from the Minor opinion.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar

So, legally, if you want to construe what the court ment when it said

all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

you must do the same.

So, could the court (as I believe your 'logic 101' course has taught you) have ment that only 1 parent had to be a US citizen, and the other could be a citizen of another country? NO

Why not? You can not construe the meaning that way, because it was not possible at the time. At the time, when a women married an alien - and no, I don't want to get into the whole bastard implications with you - she automatically aquired the citizenship of her husband, and consequently lost her US citizenship. So there is no way to construe the phrase "born in a country of parents who were its citizens" to mean anything other than both parents!

[DiogenesLamp]

Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.

Well, firstly, citizens DO have two parents regardless, so your analogy breaks down right there. Secondly, in 1787, the mother's original citizenship was irrelevant, because upon marriage a woman was automatically given the citizenship of her husband if it was previously different.

What this works out to mean is that the FATHER being a citizen was always a requirement to create a citizen. The mother's citizenship was irrelevant. This did not change until 1922 with the Cable act, which allowed women to transfer citizenship themselves.

Now it has been pointed out, that if a statute is required to make you into a citizen, then you are not a "natural citizen", you are a citizen which was created by the action of a statute.

Natural citizens existed prior to 1922. They always had Male Citizen Fathers, because citizenship has always been passed down by the father. Note my tag line:

" Partus Sequitur Patrem. "

The Word Patriotism literally derives from "the country of my father."