Replies

You are WRONG!

The founders themselves made a distinction between a mere citizen and a natural born citizen in the same sentence of the Constitution IE "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Wong Kim Ark only deals with citizenship. Mr. Ark is NOT a "Natural Born" Citizen, neither is BHO, and NO court has ever said they are!

“Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.”

You are confusing the notion of citizenship with the natural born citizen requirement. I don’t know if you are deliberately doing this, or are ignorant. The case you cited above has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The SCOTUS case which deals with this is Minor v. Happersette, 1874.

Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

So. Wong Kim Ark upheld and affirmed the Minor definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This is why Obama chickened out yesterday and didn't show up. He CAN'T beat that argument.

Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

And this is why people think you are a LIAR. You claim to consider the whole issue "flapdoodle", yet when you are told something, you fire back with opposition crib notes.

This is not the act of someone who considers the issue "flapdoodle" this is the act of someone intentionally trying to run interference for this scam.

Wong Kim Ark was ruled a "citizen" not a "natural born citizen", and that is all the time I'm going to waste attempting to educate you.

Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Try again! The court explicitly states that Wong IS NOT a natural born citizen.

From Wong Kim Ark -

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

Now to head you off, before you make the next idiotic statment, that Minor where it talked about "natural born citizen' was only dicta. In Wong Kim Ark, the court cites Minor as precedent.

This is from the Wong kim Ark opinion -

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

Minor defined the Constitutional term-of-art 'natural born citizen' to require Citizen parents. It left open whether or not children of non-Citizen parents could be included in the broader class of Citizens.

This is where Wong picks up. Wong did not fall into the class of 'natural born citizen' as defined by Minor, so they needed to continue where the Minor court left off, and decide that Wong fit into the broader class of 'Citizens' that Minor used judicial restraint to avoid.

The arguments that Wong somehow declared Wong a natural born citizen are rediculous, and if the argument ever gets adjudicated, the court will have no option but to agree.

"The Georgia case is about whether or not Obama meets the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, which our SCOTUS has in the past determined to mean mommy and daddy were US citizens.

Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

-------------------------------------

WKA was found by the court to be a "citizen," in part, because his parentS were perminantely domociled here.

Barry's father was a foreigner here on a temporary student visa.

Barry was born a British subject, owing allegience to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England. Assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth.

Minor, on the other hand, was found to be a citizen because she was a natural born Citizen....born in country, to 2 citizen parents.