US v] Wong Kim Ark has zero relevance to this issue.
They were addressing an individual that had been lawfully born in the us to non-citizen parents, not anything in that case is in any way parallel to the Pretender’s case. They were not addressing Article II, Section 1 issues.
He was born outside the US, in the homeland of his father, and never acquired US citizenship. But the relevance of that is beyond what is needed to disqualify him. There is no scenario under which he could qualify as a natural born citizen.
Thje issues and cases are discussed in detail here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
US v] Wong Kim Ark has zero relevance to this issue.
They were addressing an individual that had been lawfully born in the us to non-citizen parents, not anything in that case is in any way parallel to the Pretender’s case. They were not addressing Article II, Section 1 issues.
He was born outside the US, in the homeland of his father, and never acquired US citizenship. But the relevance of that is beyond what is needed to disqualify him. There is no scenario under which he could qualify as a natural born citizen.
Thje issues and cases are discussed in detail here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-
I think I’ll go with the actual published decisions of judges and justices who have reviewed legal briefs in these Obama eligibility cases rather than internet discussions of the issues involved.
The Indiana Court of Appeals used “Wong Kim Ark” as a precedent for their dismissal of “Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels”. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the lower court’s decision and there has been no appeal to the US Supreme Court as of this date.
It was the REPUBLICAN Attorney General of Indiana
Gregory F. Zoeller who introduced “Wong Kim Ark” as a precedent for the defense in legal briefs submitted to the Court.
Here are a few relevant quotes from the “Wong Kim Ark” decision: [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ and “…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.”
“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.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1898.