‘We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language ...’
__
So I’m right, yes? There’s not a single court ruling that agrees with you, and all you can do is repeat a cherry-picked sentence from a 19-page decision.
Of course, there’s this passage too:
‘Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.’
Now I understand, you think that the part you quoted undermines the part that I quoted. Now, all you have to do is find a judge who views it the same way.
How’s that going so far?
There’s no “I think” regarding an admission that the understanding upon which the court purports to rely does not exist in cited precedent. It’s there for anyone to read and understand.
Gloat all you want, you’ll have to live under the foreign despot to which this will surely lead, yourself. Rain falls upon the just and unjust alike.
Oh it does, that's why it is on the face of it, nonsense.
Now, all you have to do is find a judge who views it the same way.
How’s that going so far?
About as well as attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sometimes it simply doesn't matter if you are correct when Judges have their heads up their A$$. I personally do not find Judges necessary for determining what is the truth. It stands on it's own merits despite their pronouncements.