Can a subject of the Queen become president of the USA ? (Illinois, governor)

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Does not define "natural born citizen."That's not U.S. Code. Try again.

Post the U.S. Code which defines "natural born citizen."

As I said twice already, you are free to provide your own links.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Incorrect. The Constitutional requirement to be president requires one to be a "natural born citizen."

Note that the requirement is not just a "born citizen."

Where you are failing is ignoring the law. It's OK, the Supreme Court does not ignore the law and does not agree with you not that any challenge to it would ever be heard.

The Constitutional requirement is correct. What it means is a different matter because what it means to you is not the law.

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Wow!

You're actually citing Maskell's Congressional Research Service report in which Maskell LIED, MISREPRESENTED the truth, and INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTED the U.S. Supreme Court?!?

Bad form, wrecking ball. How much of a fool are you?

Here's what Maskell wrote in that November 2011 report:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
(page 51)

But here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:FindLaw | Cases and Codes

I've posted links to both. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words: "Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." They simply are NOT interchangeable. Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require citizenship." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.

Maskell deliberately misrepresented SCOTUS by changing the words to try to prove his point. A such, his "report" is fatally flawed and has no credibility.

You are arguing with synthetic pathetics.

But keep it up, I like watching rayon melt.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Post it. Which U.S. Code defines "natural born citizen?"

You already responded to the post that pasted the definition and listed the code. You said it was wrong but that's only in your head not in law.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

Haha no. Those definitions define natural born citizen.

Just as much as I can choose to define yellow as blue, or you can choose to define up as down.

Again, post the U.S. Code which defines "natural born citizen."

Where you are failing is ignoring the law.

Ignoring what law? Post the U.S. Code which defines "natural born citizen."

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

Where you are failing is ignoring the law. It's OK, the Supreme Court does not ignore the law and does not agree with you not that any challenge to it would ever be heard.

The Constitutional requirement is correct. What it means is a different matter because what it means to you is not the law.

The law comprises the plain language of the Constitution.

There are no redundancies in the Constitution.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Says "citizen at birth" much the same as the Act of 1795 which repealed the conferment of "natural born citizen" status to those born of a U.S. citizen parent(s) abroad.

It does NOT say "natural born citizen."

It does not matter. The code is not in their for random reasons. What matters is no one will depend on you to make the decision. Thank God.

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

What makes you think politicians don't also lie?

have you attempted to contact your congressional rep?

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Does not define "natural born citizen."That's not U.S. Code. Try again.

Post the U.S. Code which defines "natural born citizen."

The law does not require the code to use the words you want or insist of. You are not mentioned by name as an authority in the manner. You are not a branch of government.

[Nonarchist]

Come on Charlotte, abode your code.