With all due respect, Fuller is not “acquiescing” at all in his dissent. On the contrary, your misinterpretation of his remarks exactly reverses his meaning by not recognizing he was using an example how the majority opinion produces a nonsensical and irrational result known not to exist in actual practice and custom.
In fact, the majority opinion only said the plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and did not express a decision on whether or not he was a “natural born citizen” in either the statutory definition or the Constitutional definition. There is a difference between a statutory “natural born citizen” and the “natural born citizen” defined by Congress pursuant to the request of John Jay and George Washington regarding allegiance of the Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. Consequently, what you describe as the “law of the land” with regard to an interpretation of the “natural born citizen” to permit a person born with foreign allegiance to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief has no basis in the decision of this case which said:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In addition, it must be noted Justice Gray was appointed by President Chester Arthur. Since it has recently been revealed that President Chester Arthur was also ineligible to serve as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief due to his own allegiance at birth to the foreign sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, his appointment of Justice Gray to the Supreme court of the United States was illegal and a void act in accordance with the precedent case from the War of the Rebellion when the obligations of the Confederate government of the State of Texas were voided by the U.S. Supreme Court. This raises the question whether or not SCOTUS in a future decision must disregard the Kim Wong Ark decision due to the taint of participation of an unlawful Jusitce in addition to invalid assertions about English-Biritsh common-law. Far from being the law of the land, the taint of influence by persons having unlawful allegiances at birth to a foreign sovereign is more pertinent and vitally important than ever before.
You've just proved my point. Fuller, in his dissent, is criticizing the majority and he uses the example that I cited as a illustrative example of how wrong the majority's decision is. But, the fact of the matter is he's in the minority and writing the dissenting opinion, not the precedent setting majority opinion.
The precedent, at least as Fuller reads it, is that the majority's decision allows for children born on American soil to foreign citizens to be eligible for the Presidency, and at the same time, it denies that eligibility to children born overseas but to American citizens. Fuller has a problem with that, but he is recognizing that is the practical application of the majority's opinion. As I clearly pointed out in my first post to you, that is what Fuller acquiesces to.
Whether you or I or anyone else for that matter, believe that the majority opinion in Ark is flawed and in conflict with respect to the original intent of the founding fathers, it was and is the position of the Supreme Court. That will only change if the court decides to reverse itself, or at least set aside the relevant part of the prior decision. One could argue, that with the the denial of certiorari in the Donofrio v. Wells case, the court is signaling that they don't have the apatite to overturn Ark in any way.