Apuzzo knocks it out of the park!! (vanity)

I>...And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Minor v. Happersett

(Argued: February 9, 1875 -- Decided: March 29, 1875)

Justice Waite: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was NEVER doubted that ALL children born in a country of parentS who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born Citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. SOME authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there HAVE been DOUBTS, but NEVER as to the first."

(Emphases Mine)

Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett said to this class (paraphrase) there has NEVER been doubt...

That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a "natural born" Citizen!

However **SOME** authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

"As to this class there HAVE been doubts...

but NEVER as to the first" (CLASS)

ANALYSIS:

DOUBT VS. CERTAINTY

SHAKY GROUND VS. SOLID GROUND

The Judge believes the opinion of SOME authorities supersedes the opinion of ALL authorities but doesn’t explain how a decision grounded in DOUBT overcomes a decision grounded in CERTAINTY.

Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes VERY FAR in defining the term and its meaning in this country. (Emphases Mine)

So is "VERY FAR" FAR ENOUGH to overcome ALL DOUBT in defining who is a “natural-born” Citizen in regard to a Presidential candidate?

If Wong Kim Ark, in fact, clearly DEFINES who is a “natural-born” Citizen then why does this Judge equivocate by using weasel words like VERY FAR?

It would appear that the Judge does NOT believe Wong Kim Ark clearly defines who is a “natural born” Citizen, in regards to a presidential candidate.

The judge is muddying the waters here.

Not all "natural born" Citizens become or desire to become a Presidential candidate but ALL Presidential candidates MUST be "natural born" Citizens if they desire to serve as President, under the constitution.

Wong could have been declared a “natural born” Citizen by the court IF the court thought that being born in the united states sufficed to make him one.

Rather than declaring Wong a “natural born” Citizen the court drew a CLEAR distinction by declaring Wong “a citizen of the United States.”

STE=Q

...And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.