^ 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.
You can’t refute the analysis, which can be read and understood by anybody.
All you can do is obfuscate.
As for “connecting the dots,” the dots on which your silly theory are based don’t even exist.
"All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
As I say, there is no significant authority, conservative, liberal, or in between, who agrees with you.
But it's not just people like Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. It's the entire weight of law and history, including all of our early legal scholars and experts.