IF the United States Supreme Court Rules Obama Is Ineligible To Be POTUS (claim, vote)

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats not the precedent being discussed. You cant follow along with the thread with the rest of us but expect us to take you seriously

its Minor v, Happersett

Which made no ruling whatsoever on what constitutes natural-born citizenship.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats not the precedent being discussed.

No it's not.

It's the actual precedent, not the fake Birther "precedent" from Minor v. Happerset which (as you point out) is the one being discussed.

Originally Posted by pghquest

You cant follow along with the thread with the rest of us but expect us to take you seriously

its Minor v, Happersett

There is no precedent on this issue found in Minor v. Happersett.

[noexcuseforignorance]

Originally Posted by Rick Roma

Obama could be excluded from the 2012 ballot....


Supreme Court Rules Obama Ineligible!*|*Front Porch Politics (http://www.frontporchpolitics.com/2011/12/supreme-court-rules-obama-ineligible/ - broken link)

Is that tin foil hat a little tight today?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

wrong.. children referrs to individual chilren in question, not all of them as a collective

How can a plural noun refer to an individual?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Arus

Yes: This is what Mv H said in DICTA:

Here is the Conclusion:

Please point to us where in the Conclusion does the court define natural born citizenship.

Your own quote proves you wrong

It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

Thats EXACTLY what I said.. ANY ONE CHILD.. its an INDIVIDUAL.. its not a collective.

It does not answer the question of ONE child with parents that are not both citizens.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Arus

The only one embarassing themselves are birthers. And your reply had nothing to do with what Historian Dude stated:

It's called subject/object agreement. "Parents" is plural because "children" is plural.


Grammar and reading comprehension fail

That makes no sense at all. If they meant only ONE parent, it wouldn't be plural. "Children of A CITIZEN PARENT" makes plenty of sense. See, that means, children of ONE parent that's a citizen. "A child of CITIZEN PARENTS" also makes sense. It's a child with TWO PARENTS THAT ARE CITIZENS. Just because one was plural does not necessarily mean both words have to be plural.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by pghquest

wrong.. children referrs to individual chilren in question, not all of them as a collective

Fail:

It's called subject/object agreement. "Parents" is plural because "children" is plural.

The same is true for parents..

Wrong.

[Mathguy]

The same mental gymnastics that put Wesley Snipes in the federal pen are on glorious display in this thread.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

How can a plural noun refer to an individual?

Easy: Blacks voted for Obama

Are you tell me all blacks got together and placed ONE vote for Obama?, or did they go into polling places and vote INDIVIDUALLY

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Which made no ruling whatsoever on what constitutes natural-born citizenship.

Correct, which is why it keeps coming up over and over..