Originally posted by ShadyLawyer
There is no point in talking to you
Because I refuse to take some article from a propaganda website as proof?
I asked you before and I will ask you again. Where in the constitution or by law does it clearly state that both parents must be citizens in order for children born on US soil to be natural born? Where? Thus far you've referenced me to a surpreme court ruling that merely "was in doubt", two articles from fringe websites that still directly fail to reference the constitition and the law and thats it.
Do you have the spine to venture beyond the fringe websites and actually reference me in the constitution or by law where it cleary defines the need for both parents to be citizens in the case of natural born citizenship? Are you capable of moving beyond what the fringe websites told you? Can you come up with real evidence? Because thus far you have shown me you are incapable.
you are beyond thick-headed
I have asked you numerous times to drop the fringe websites and come up with direct evidence constitutionally where it states without a doubt that both parents must be citizens. You have failed to do so, instead you trod around your conclusions and offer me more "questions". I dont want more of your questions, I dont want some article that merely tells me "his eligibility is in question". I dont want a court ruling that merely states there is a "doubt". Under a court of law solid evidence is required to make the case, you continue to fail in doing so.
Get yourself up and actually directly use the constitition and the federal laws to state your case. I dont want this garbage from some fringe website. This is a serious accusation you make here, back it up.
and have no legal background or understanding of the Constitution
Given that you have repeatly failed to prove constitutionally where it says both parents must be citizens inorder for a child at birth to be a natural born you have the nerve to be critical of my analysis on the constitution. By the way go back and tell me which one of us actually bothered to directly reference the constitution.
I see no where in the constitution where it proves your claim, you have failed to directly tie your argument to the constitution so dont talk to me about my understanding. You are yet to correctly reference the constitution.
who read our respective threads can judge for themselves who is a Constitutional expert
What matters more? The facts in the constitution itself or the self proclaimed "constitutionalist" who continously failed to use the constitution directly to prove his point?
SG
[edit on 31-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]
