Again, just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true. Your so-called acceptance of the premise or definition of allegiance is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court of the USA very clearly stated that a person born within the borders of the USA are literally and specifically natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Period. Short of the Supreme Court taking that definition up again in a new case, or a Constitutional Amendment, this fact will not ever change.
QKek. . .suggest you take your own advise. Your quote, excerpted below is not Supreme Court precedent as it's apparently from circuit court.
In paragraph 23 of the court majority's opinion:
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Allegiance is not defined; therefore, it is an assumption that it goes together with Birth. Assumptions are not legal facts.
The 14th Amendment establishes "quasi" birthright citizenship but not natural born citizenship. Read the 14th again. There are different types of citizenship.
The Minor vs Happersett case is Supreme Court precedent and provides a definition of Natural Born Citizen. When Obama ran for POTUS the search ability for this case was obscured and most searches turned up the Kim Van Ark case which goes into birthright citizenship; not natural born issue.
As to lying, think you have done enough to obscure this issue. The liberal/communists do not want it brought up as it affects not only Kamala but also the Obama administration. BTW, since Obama was adopted and went to school in Indonesia (which does not allow dual citizenship); even if construed as "natural born" originally he forfeited this at adoption and thus, at best, can only be a naturalized citizen if he even went to the trouble of reclaiming US citizenship.
You aren't getting it. The entire paragraph I put there is from the Supreme Court Majority Opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Case.
In that opinion, the author referred to a Circuit Court statement. And then continued to comment on it. Read the full opinion if you like. You will find many many many references to other cases in it, including Minor v. Happersett. Justice Gray was using those prior cases as talking points to explain the full opinion of the majority of the Court.
I am not referring to a Circuit Court Case to show I am right. The Supreme Court used the Circuit Court Case as examples of why they came to the decision they did.
Minor v. Happersett talked about citizenship to a certain degree. But 23 years later, Wong Kim Ark took that and other cases to specifically, definitively, and explicitly define the term 'natural born citizen'. And that definition has stood for at least 126 years and shows no evidence that it is in danger of being altered.
I have told no lies in even a single of my responses because all I am doing to literally pointing to the exact text in the Supreme Court Opinion papers.
LOL.
Again, just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true. Your so-called acceptance of the premise or definition of allegiance is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court of the USA very clearly stated that a person born within the borders of the USA are literally and specifically natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Period. Short of the Supreme Court taking that definition up again in a new case, or a Constitutional Amendment, this fact will not ever change.
Negative ghost rider; the pattern is full. SC precedent is born of two (plural) US citizen parents makes a natural born citizen.
Cutsey sayings will never change legal facts. If you want lie to yourself go ahead.
QKek. . .suggest you take your own advise. Your quote, excerpted below is not Supreme Court precedent as it's apparently from circuit court. In paragraph 23 of the court majority's opinion:
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Allegiance is not defined; therefore, it is an assumption that it goes together with Birth. Assumptions are not legal facts.
The 14th Amendment establishes "quasi" birthright citizenship but not natural born citizenship. Read the 14th again. There are different types of citizenship.
The Minor vs Happersett case is Supreme Court precedent and provides a definition of Natural Born Citizen. When Obama ran for POTUS the search ability for this case was obscured and most searches turned up the Kim Van Ark case which goes into birthright citizenship; not natural born issue.
As to lying, think you have done enough to obscure this issue. The liberal/communists do not want it brought up as it affects not only Kamala but also the Obama administration. BTW, since Obama was adopted and went to school in Indonesia (which does not allow dual citizenship); even if construed as "natural born" originally he forfeited this at adoption and thus, at best, can only be a naturalized citizen if he even went to the trouble of reclaiming US citizenship.
You aren't getting it. The entire paragraph I put there is from the Supreme Court Majority Opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Case.
In that opinion, the author referred to a Circuit Court statement. And then continued to comment on it. Read the full opinion if you like. You will find many many many references to other cases in it, including Minor v. Happersett. Justice Gray was using those prior cases as talking points to explain the full opinion of the majority of the Court.
I am not referring to a Circuit Court Case to show I am right. The Supreme Court used the Circuit Court Case as examples of why they came to the decision they did.
Minor v. Happersett talked about citizenship to a certain degree. But 23 years later, Wong Kim Ark took that and other cases to specifically, definitively, and explicitly define the term 'natural born citizen'. And that definition has stood for at least 126 years and shows no evidence that it is in danger of being altered.
I have told no lies in even a single of my responses because all I am doing to literally pointing to the exact text in the Supreme Court Opinion papers.