VT – Paige v Obama – Apuzzo
November 19, 2012
Mario objects to the ruling
In discussing Ankeny, Judge Bent said that “‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.” But upon close examination, this distinction is not logical at all. This argument is tantamount to arguing that any person who is a “citizen at birth” is a “natural born Citizen.”
Exactly, your point? Mario finally understands so now what? Calling it ‘not logical’ ? Poor Mario cannot accept the simple fact that Courts have found his ‘arguments’ to be wanting.
6 Comments
Comments are closed.
In essence, what the court is saying is that it finds no significant difference, in terms of acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth, between an English, common law, ‘natural born subject’ of the realm and a post-American Revolutionary War, ‘natural born U.S. Citizen’.
Is this what you are saying?
ex animo
davidfarrar
That’s what the Courts have been saying. Where have you been?
Is this what you are saying?
Didn’t you read Judge Mahili’s opinion in Georgia?
Yes, and it’s every court that birthers have been running to for the past 4 years. All you people have accomplished is to turn what was a solid precedent into a massively armored, and surrounded by moats and minefields, principle of the law. Good going!
Mario is still pushing the legal impossibility of “naturalized at birth” to define his previously unknown third category of citizenship.
So far every court follows the foundations laid in the ruling in US v WKA, No surprise here.