Replies

You need to take your own advice. I've already read the case and know that at no time does the majority ruling ever say that children born in the country of foreigners can be eligible for the office of president or anything that even comes close to this idea.

You are simply and absolutely delusional.

And your view is shared by NOBODY WHO IS ANYBODY.

Nor is it even remotely in touch with what the case said.

Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."

Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."

And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.

All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.

It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.

This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:

THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.

Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.

It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.

This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.

It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.

Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.

It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.

Because that is what you are.

And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course you and other birthers do, every day, since that is the only way you can possibly try to maintain the silly fantasy.

Oh, no, Jeff is turning into Mr. Rogers.

You are simply and absolutely delusional.

^ Starts with namecalling and pointless insults.

And your view is shared by NOBODY WHO IS ANYBODY.

^ Resorts to logical fallacy.

Nor is it even remotely in touch with what the case said.

^ Follows with outright falsehood.

Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case:

^ C&Ps large amounts of SCOTUS decision that NEVER uses the term natural-born citizen, and tries to play elaborate game of 'connect the dots.'

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

^ Now a direct admission that the C&Ped material does NOT use, apply or even imply the term natural-born citizen.

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

^ Then tries to play connect the dots again.

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

^ And now fabricates a citation and puts in quotes despite that this paragraph is NOT in the case he is citing.

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

jeffy, that's called "connect the dots." We don't have to play "connect the dots" because the court gave us a DIRECT definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." The court also gave a negative declaration that contradicts your claims, because it relies on the 14th amendment, which the court specifically said "does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens."

It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.

The ONLY rule that the Court applied was the 14th amendment, except they said Ark's parents satisfied the subject clause by having permanent residence and domicil. This means Obama can't even be a citizen under this ruling.

This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.

Nonsense. You had to play connect the dots and NOTHING in what you cited says ANYTHING about presidential eligibility, while the appeal from the lower court discussed it specifically. SECOND, you're ignoring that the dissent AGREED that persons born in the country to foreign parents could be citizens as long as there wasn't a treaty to the contrary, as there was for Ark. The dissent wasn't about the ruling making Ark an NBC. It didn't. The dissent was because the treaty prevented Ark from being a 14th amendment citizen by birth.

Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.

The 1898 decision relied on Minor to settle the NBC issue: as all children born in the country to citizen parents. The 1913 Luria decision unanimously cited Minor and NOT Ark as the precedent on Art II eligibility. There's no proof that any modern Supreme Court has specifically reviewed the eligibility argument and even less proof they based anything on your misunderstanding of the Ark decision. Show us a direct quote ... and AGAIN, not a convoluted game of connect the dots. /p^ Follows with outright falsehood.