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.
Read the Wong Kim Ark case and disagree. Your confusion appears to center upon “native born versus natural born”. This is further added to by the sections contemplating “natural born subject” under English law.
There is a difference between native born and natural born which is created by the citizenship of the parent(s). Kamala Harris is native born but not natural born; therefore she is not eligible to be VP or POTUS. She is a citizen per the Wong Kim Ark case. She is not a natural born citizen as defined in Minor vs Happersett; born of two US Citizen parents.
The founders used very specific language and took special contemplation of those to serve, or having potential to serve, as POTUS as such office is also CIC of the military.
The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed he was a citizen by being native born. It does not stipulate he is a natural born citizen.
In the case of Harris she is a communist; an allegiance or non-allegiance she shares with her father. The very thing the founding fathers sought to protect the country from was a conflicting allegiance.
So; three type of citizens exist; natural born, native born and naturalized. Only one type of citizen can be POTUS.
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.
Read the Wong Kim Ark case and disagree. Your confusion appears to center upon “native born versus natural born”. This is further added to by the sections contemplating “natural born subject” under English law.
There is a difference between native born and natural born which is created by the citizenship of the parent(s). Kamala Harris is native born but not natural born; therefore she is not eligible to be VP or POTUS. She is a citizen per the Wong Kim Ark case. She is not a natural born citizen as defined in Minor vs Happersett; born of two US Citizen parents.
The founders used very specific language and took special contemplation of those to serve, or having potential to serve, as POTUS as such office is also CIC of the military.
The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed he was a citizen by being native born. It does not stipulate he is a natural born citizen.
In the case of Harris she is a communist; an allegiance or non-allegiance she shares with her father. The very thing the founding fathers sought to protect the country from was a conflicting allegiance.
So; three type of citizens exist; natural born, native born and naturalized. Only one type of citizen can be POTUS.