Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,432
- 48
USArmyLiar, do you always plagiarize Apuzzo? Is this because you're to dumb to think of this stuff on your own?
No, they didn't. What a bunch of hyperbole. What they "conflated" is that a citizen of and a natural born are both citizens, which is a fact. But there is still a legal distinction between the two because a natural born does not include naturalized citizens, which is a fact. But I'm sure he enjoyed knocking down his own strawman. Derp.
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Responses to an Obama Supporters Comments on Obamas Eligibility to be President
Slartibartfast: f any court rules on the definition of 'natural born citizen' that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.
...
...It basically took Wong Kim Arks definition of a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States and used it to also define an Article II natural born Citizen. Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause natural born Citizen from the Constitution...
No, they didn't. What a bunch of hyperbole. What they "conflated" is that a citizen of and a natural born are both citizens, which is a fact. But there is still a legal distinction between the two because a natural born does not include naturalized citizens, which is a fact. But I'm sure he enjoyed knocking down his own strawman. Derp.