Comment: Care to explain and explained

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: care to explain? (see in situ)

Care to explain and explained

Did you read my post carefully? I am saying he was NOT an NBC because he was NOT born on US soil (though I recognize that some could argue that it WAS US soil, and in fact the Senate Resolution DID FIND, in passing, without explanation, that he WAS born on US soil, thought that portion of Panama where he was born did not become the Panama Canal Zone, ie. US SOIL, until almost one year AFTER his birth!). Why would the Senate Resolution find that he was BORN ON US soil if it they did not recognize such birth as essential to NBC?

The birthplace requirement is ONE of the requirements for NBC, IN ADDITION to parental (2 parents') citizenship. NBC combines the requirements of BOTH jus soli (law of the soil) AND jus sanguinis (law of the blood); it is NOT an EITHER/OR requirement. That is why both Vattel and the Supreme Court in Minor defined the "natives, or natural born citizens" as those born in the country to citizen parents.

The Senate Resolution was NON-BINDING and had NO LEGAL effect but was intended to carry POLITICAL weight with NO LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY for those 99 Senators who signed it (McCain alone abstained). Even it were a bill passed by the Senate AND the House and signed into LAW by the President (an absurdity), it would still have no LEGAL validity because a provision of the Constitution, though it can be interpreted (or misinterpred) by the Courts and by the executive and legislative branches and by the people as well, can NEVER be validly CHANGED, even by an act of Congress, except through the process of AMENDMENT.

You assert that when it comes to NBC, "the place of birth doesn't change that." You may choose to believe that assertion is or ought to be true, but it clearly is NOT, since Vattel and the Supreme Court in Minor clearly include "birth in the country" as a requirement for NBC. Where are your citations for authority to the contrary? Where is the Supreme Court case that rejects the Minor Court's definition of NBC?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?