Can a subject of the Queen become president of the USA ? (claim, income)

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

The statute presented is the law that defines the term. There's nothing you can do about it.

Oh, would that that were only true!

Not!

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

The law does not require the code to use the words you want or insist of.

How about using the required words at all? The Constitutional requirement is explicitly clear, "natural born citizen."

Please cite the federal law that defines "natural born citizen."

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

The statute presented is the law that defines the term.

Quote it, word for word.

You'll find that it DOESN'T say what you think it does.

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

I have never been proven wrong on anything regarding this subject besides the court of public opinion in your imagination.

You will never be able to provide case law challenging what I said because it will never ever exist. And if Cruz becomes president, it will become moot anyway. No lawsuit could remove him. So, we'll see what happens. If he runs your ilk will not stop him. If he's elected, your ilk will not remove him.

It's Obama whom you really love, isn't it?

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Quote it, word for word.

You'll find that it DOESN'T say what you think it does.

Or what it wants it to say.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by GCharlotte

I have never been proven wrong on anything regarding this subject

You claim the law defines "natural born citizen." I've asked you to cite the law word for word and post a link to the law.

Do so now, or be proven to be a liar. Your choice.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Nonarchist

You are arguing with synthetic pathetics.

Are they deliberately ignoring facts, as in GCharlotte's blatantly honest, in your face "It does not matter" admission?

Or are they really so dumbed-down that they have abysmal reading comprehension skills?

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

How about using the required words at all? The Constitutional requirement is explicitly clear, "natural born citizen."

Please cite the federal law that defines "natural born citizen."

OK, you're being reasonable by saying "please". I'm going to stick with the premise that the exact words do not have to be used. This has been a problem for a long time. There have been a lot of efforts to change it. But why would it be a problem to Congress if it wasn't for the fact that Congress intended that statute to do what I said?

Let me ask you something. Do you think anything defines the term? My guess is that you feel that the term is either self-evident or that that Congress at the time used some other source to assume it. But I don't want to guess.

Do you think the term is defined in Supreme Law and if not what defines it?

(We can return to ad hominem after the break or not)

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Quote it, word for word.

You'll find that it DOESN'T say what you think it does.

It says exactly what I think it does. What matters is what it means and I think it means exactly what I said. Quoting it won't change either.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by Nonarchist

It's Obama whom you really love, isn't it?

In other words, if I don't agree with your position I am therefore equivalent to some evil in your mind. That's one hell of a projection and I'd talk that out with a professional.

What would happen if I agreed with you on something like abortion or gen control? Would I be two people then?

You're not relying on facts because you're out of them.