Birther Lakin Wakes Up and Smells the Coffee. (countries, history, arguments)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

WRONG. The Constitution doesn't spell out the eligibility requirement as Mr Jay defined it, and Mr Jay is not the law of the land.

Hmmm... We have direct evidence of the origination of the 'natural born' clause in the Constitution, and your reaction is...

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The second paragraph specifically refers to the first paragraph, which is clearly discussing natural born British subjects.

Ignoring that Wong Kim Ark also explicitly says that "subjects" and "citizens" are the same thing... how would you reconcile the Court's assertion that the same rule was still in effect after the Constitution was written if they were referring to natural born British subjects?

Exactly?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Hmmm... We have direct evidence of the origination of the 'natural born' clause in the Constitution.

Too bad it never defines it.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The second paragraph specifically refers to the first paragraph, which is clearly discussing natural born British subjects.

I guess the second part, where it refers to after the Declaration of Independence, they were referring to that British Declaration of Independence, right?

[Gary Siete]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Sentence is in:

Dismissal from the service.

6 months confinement

Forfeiture of all pay and benefits.

dismissal = dishonorable discharge

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Gary Siete

dismissal = dishonorable discharge

Yes. That's the commissioned officer version.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Wrong again, Ranger. If you want to know what I'm actually arguing, then you should ask instead of trying to mind read.

Unlike you, I have demonstrated an ability to answer direct questions.

No, you've given your 'opinion,' and cited quotes you don't understand.

I said the authority to issue orders had nothing to do with the chain of command.

Interesting... Sgt to Private (on a whim): Soldier! Deploy to North Korea! Now! Deploy! Deploy!

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Too bad it never defines it.

The Constitution defines what it is by defining what it is not.

A Natural Born Citizen is MORE than a Born Citizen.

Three words to two words.

A refined definition for a refined object.

Not just anyone off the street can be president.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I guess the second part, where it refers to after the Declaration of Independence, they were referring to that British Declaration of Independence, right?

They're refering to time frames and geopolitically changing events, as is evidenced by the other conditions and events cited in that paragraph.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Ignoring that Wong Kim Ark also explicitly says that "subjects" and "citizens" are the same thing... how would you reconcile the Court's assertion that the same rule was still in effect after the Constitution was written if they were referring to natural born British subjects?

Okay... British subjects and British citizens are the same thing.