Birther brigade going after Rubio now (legal, Obama, treason, independent)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

More than a dozen subsequent court decisions say you are wrong.

Flawed court decisions.

Even SCOTUS decisions have been overturned. Dred Scott v. Sandford, anyone?

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Just another red herring from you.

None of the Secretary of State decisions have any bearing on the discussion at hand.

You've already freely admitted, numerous times, that Obama was born a citizen of the United States. Your argument is about natural-born status, not about citizenship, so these diplomatic decisions by the State Department are irrelevant.

What you require is a law stating that natural-born citizens must have two citizen parents. You don't have that. And the other side HAS a court ruling saying that anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen.

So all you have is your wishful thinking that your interpretation of the law would carry the day. And we have a court ruling that says our interpretation does carry the day. Which is why the birthers keep on failing in court. The LAW isn't on your side.

Loose use of dicta doesn't bridge Wong Kim Ark with the subsequent, to change Wong Kim Ark.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

And AFTER that, Secretaries of State applied U.S. law to determine that those born in the U.S. to NON-citizen fathers were in fact NOT U.S. citizens.

Again, those were diplomatic decisions, not legal decisions. They never got within a light year of any court of law.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

But there is no obligation to document anything but the names.

Unless asked for more info. The passport application is subject to review. Did you NOT know that, too?

Your ignorance is truly staggering.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Flawed court decisions.

You don't get to decide that.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Even SCOTUS decisions have been overturned.

So... when one of those more than a dozen cases get's overturned, come let us know.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

AND Obama's parents weren't Chinese, loyal to the Emperor of China.

So you agree, the Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Unless asked for more info.

Of course. What does that have to do with the explicit standards set by the State Department regarding proof of citizenship?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The Secretary of State determinations weren't LAW.

Can you give us the federal statute that permits Secretaries of State to make unlawful determinations?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

This tangent is STUPID.

You, yourself, concede that President Obama was born a US citizen.

If born in Hawaii, as presented.

The reason why is this: Alaska and Hawaii are the only two states in which U.S. citizenship law does not have the 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement:
48 states: 8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Alaska: 8 USC § 1404 - Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867 | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Hawaii: 8 USC § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

A forged birth certificate from Hawaii makes sense now, doesn't it? No 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement for U.S. citizenship.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Can you give us the federal statute that permits Secretaries of State to make unlawful determinations?

What a dumb request.