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.
On the contrary, you are simply declaring a victory where none exists.
If you go back to my earlier post and read the majority decision, you will see how the decision says the only question being addressed by that decision is whether or not the person was born as a citizen of the United States and the State of California pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you read the entire majority decision you see there is not one mention of the meaning or definition of the term, “natural born citizen,” much less an effort by the Justices to define or interpret the term. Consequently, the majority decision does nothing whatsoever to define the term, “natural been citizen.”
It is interesting how you on the one hand claim the minority decision is of no legal consequence because it was in the minority, and then you turn around with the other hand and proclaim Justice Fuller's demonstration of the nonsensical construction having no existence in fact is somehow supposed to suddenly have the full effect and full consequence of a Supreme Court majority decision. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.
The case as it was presented, argued, and decided by the majority of the Court never addressed the legal question of whether or not the person was a “natural born citizen.” Although Justice Fuller did speculate on the secondary consequences relating to just such a question, he disposed of the possibility in his other comments in the dissenting opinion thereby rejecting the validity of the claim. Now you want to take his comments out of context, reverse their overall intent and meaning, and somehow transform this dissenting speculation into the force of law while ignoring the fact that the majority of Justices refused to include the “natural born citizen” argument knowing full well there was a possibility or in all likeliehood would have been rejected by the majority of the Justices had the attempt been made. Clearly the decision does not address the definition of “natural born citizen” because the majority of the Justices chose to avoid the question altogether.
Current information revealing Chester Arthur was similarly ineligible to serve as President of the United States, his apparent awareness of illegitimacy when he destroyed his papers to avoid discovery of the illegitimacy, and his unlawful appointment of Justice Gray appears to result in the absurdity of people using one illegal presidential administration vouching for the legitimacy of another illegal presidential administration.
It is long past the time when people need to wake up and understand We the People are the true sovereigns of this Nation. The Supreme Court is not our sovereign, but is the servant of the People. The Congress is not our Sovereign, they are the servants of the citizens of the United States, although they have recently expressed the opinion they can do as they like as if they were our Sovereign until we elect someone else just like them in their contempt for the will of the Citizens.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and George Washington asked the Constitutional Convention and the Congress to consider safeguarding our Republic in the future by allowing only those persons born with no allegiance to a foreign sovereign to serve as Commander-in-Chief and President or Senator of the United States. The Congress compromised by deleting Senators from the requirement and extending the term of required citizenship for Senators. In its final form, the Congress enacted the Constitution and the clause regarding being a natural born citizen with the will and the intent to deny eligibility to the office of Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States to any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
Today, we now are witnessing another attempt by a political party and its various supporters to subvert and overthrow the clearly stated intent of John Jay, George Washington, and the Congress who wrote the clause into the Constitution for the singular purpose of denying the Office of the President to any person born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign. It is now up to the present day Citizens of the United States of America to make a decision to honor the intent and purpose clearly and unmistakably expressed by the Founding Fathers by taking the necessary lawful actions needed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or they can permit someone else to unlawfully subvert the Constitution and the clearly stated will of the Founding Fathers through pettifoggery, false propaganda, and an assortment of other methods of disinformation and sowing of discord.
No decision of the Supreme Court can amend the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Only amendments to the Constitution can lawfully alter its articles. Supreme Court decisions cannot by themselves alter the U.S. Constitution, and the Citizens of the United States have the right and the duty to cause the Supreme Court to comply with the Articles of the Constitution by appeals to the Supreme Court and by impeachment in the event of high crimes and misdemeanors by members of the Supreme Court.
The Founding Fathers were explicit in ending British common-law in the United States effective on the 4th day of July in the Year of 1776, notwithstanding any erroneous Supreme Court discussions to the contrary. The natural born citizen clause the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution is consistent with two thousand years of precedent jurisprudence, particularly with jus albinatus, the works of Vattel, and other European jurists upon whose works this Republic was founded in direct opposition to the regal British common-law the Republic had just overthrown.
As the true Sovereigns of the United States of America, Citizens also have the right and the civic duty to demand their legislative representatives comply with the Constitution. In the event the Citizens determine their legislative representatives have failed to comply with their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, the Citizens have an obligation to take all lawful measures to remove those representatives who have failed in their duties at the election polls, by impeachment, and by recall or other means as determkined by law. In the event the present laws are insufficient to protect and defend the Constitution and the democratic character of the Republic, the Sovereign Citizens have the right to meet in convention to amend the Constitution and repeal amendments as needed to bring the representatives of the Citizens of the United States into compliance with the Constitution.