Tisdale v. Obama, the federal district court stated that it is “well settled that those born in the United States are natural born citizens” and calls the claim that Obama (and Paul and Romeny) are ineligible “without merit.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al

Case dismissed WITH prejudice.

The judge in Georgia really threw some (more) water on the birthers today…

1. Their is no credible evidence of birth records being forged;

AND

2. The US Constitution does NOT require two US Citizen parents to be a “Natural Born Citizen.:

Read all about it!

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html

I disagree with you, and I have Justice Fuller’s words in the very same case to back me up.

I would agree with you completely concerning Justice Gray declaring Wong a natural born Citizen if Justice Gray had written the words “natural born Citizen” into the majority opinion.

But you are saying that there are two types of citizens: naturalized and natural born.

Certainly, Supreme Court Justices would understand the nomenclature of citizenship. Others in the Appellate and District Courts would understand the terms. Those in the State Court systems would understand also. Court opinions have been broadcast into the public area through newspapers from the founding of the Republic to the 1800’s, 1900’s, down to this present time, extending the outreach into our homes via the radio and TV.

Certainly all the listeners that have ever read a Supreme Court opinion, read newspaper reports or have heard results on radio or TV do not have the necessary legal training to discern the legal nuances in Supreme Court opinions or most probably any other court opinion.

So, it is incumbent upon the Republic’s judges to write clearly, in unambiguous language so that even the most ill-informed can understand their opinions, to prevent any misunderstanding, since the judges are declaring the law of the land, even to future generations.

Since the most of us do not have this specialized knowledge the Republic’s judges have the full burden to correctly state the law and to publish it through the appropriate media.

So I can only conclude that Justice Gray thought Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and not a “natural born Citizen” since he did have the oath-centered obligation to fulfill his duties as a Justice. It is the words of Justice Gray that declared his intention, and he wrote that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

If Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen, then it was incumbent upon Justice Gray to write the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section of the opinion. Under these circumstances, to only declare Wong a citizen is deceitful.

You have every right to have the opinion that you hold. But the opinion that you hold in this matter does not agree with the Constitution.

The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

But Justice Gray did not write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of Wong. Was it just an oversight? Every word written in the Constitution is written in the document to give a particular and singular effect.

If Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray has misled the American people, the judicial system, and most probably has committed a fraud upon the Court.
Words have meaning and different words have different meanings..

Did you read the article?

Leo Donofrio quotes Chief Justice John Marshall. You don’t agree with Donofrio obviously. But you do not even agree with Chief Justice John Marshall in his quote or the other quotes that Donofrio uses in the related opinions.

How do I know this? If you agreed with Donofrio you would be agreeing with Chief John Marshall.

But you certainly do not agree. Do not give me crap about only believing Supreme Court Justices
.
Since the rule of statutory construction expresses how the Constitution is to be interpreted, and you do not agree with it (as expressed above), then your interpretation is faulty at best. In fact, it is fraudulent. To ignore this rule is, to quote you, nonsensical.

As i said, there are two kinds of citizens, Natual Born and Naturalized.

As far as calling my opinion “nonsensical,” then you also have to call Justice Fuller’s opinion “nonsensical” as he AGREED with what I am saying…

So who to believe, who to believe… a supreme court justice that actually heard the case, or an internet blogger…? Not that hard to pick the credible person is it, Hugh?

As far as the Arthur eligibility, as you state it IS impossible to suggest that Gray had an outcome on Arthur’s eligibility. So why did the blogger YOU linked us to state that Gray should have recused himself?

And AGAIN, if Gray’s decision did not call Wong a Natural Born Citizen, why would it matter if he recused himself or not?

It is nonsensical for you to assert the Wong is a natural born Citizen when Gray only said that Wong was only a citizen. Somehow you think that all citizens born in county are natural born Citizens and that is not true. It is possible to be born in county with one or more parents who are not citizens. If this is the case, the child is a citizen only and not natural born.

If Gray thought that Wong was natural born, he would have been required to write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of the Wong, but he did not do so. Otherwise, persons can reach any conclusion they want to reach about an opinion from the Supreme Court or any other lower court. But they would be wrong.

You simply cannot insert words into a court opinion and make it be so. Your position simply is not possible.

Leo Donofrio has posted the new article “The Dirty ‘little’ Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.” It all has to do with statutory construction.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

The blogger’s point was that Gray had a vested interest in issuing a decision that made Chester eligible, as Chester appointed Gray to the Court.

Blogger is arguing out of both sides of his mouth: on one hand, he claims that the Wong decision does NOT make Obama (one citizen parent) eligible while on the other hand he argues that Gray used the decision to make Arthur (one citizen parent) eligible.

It’s nonsensical.