Mr. Wildcat seems to take the approach of throwing much at the wall and hoping it will stick just enough to discourage those still looking for real information. Recourse to original sources is a more efficient approach to refuting the nonsense. First, dismiss any reference to state courts. They often say whatever they feel the law ought to be, and have lifetime appointments, no matter how many times they get reversed by appeals courts, including the final appeals court. And they know that few pay attention to the law anyway. Just look at that joke of a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court known as Ankeny. It gets cited by other federal judges, who know better than to cite Supreme Court precedence such as Minor, to dismiss candidate eligibility cases. Incidental or not, two of the federal judges who cited Ankeny were Muslims. Was it Taquia?
Read the decision, just the end, of Wong Kim Ark and you'll see that Mr. Wildcat is, probably intentionally, blowing smoke. Wong Kim was made a citizen - not natural born, but native born, like Obama, to alien parents. Justice Gray cited Minor v. Happersett and quoted Chief Justice Waite verbatim.
The 14th Amendment was properly called a “Naturalization Amendment”. It only produced naturalized citizens. Wong Kim Ark's legal source is the 14th Amendment.
Finally, the author of the 14th Amendment was unequivocal. Congressman, judge advocate of the Lincoln Assassination, John Bingham told the house:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Read the oath sworn to by every citizen naturalized by our State Department. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” This oath is based upon the 14th Amendment. How could anyone interpret this to permit a child to inherit citizenship from an alien parent? The meaning of naturalization is what insures that naturalized parents can inculcate allegiance in their offspring. Many of the children born to naturalized citizens understand our foundations better than natural born citizens (all of whom must also be native born - born on our soil). Until recently, my naturalized friends clearly knew more about our Constitution than I did.
With Obots facts are irrelevant. Correcting them in no way implies that they will not repeat the misinformation in their next comment. But since Obot Wildcat has continued with the same theme, let it be clear that the Constitution was explicitly written without definitions of common terms, whether common language or common law. That way politicians could not use the naturally occurring evolution of language semantics - meaning - to reinterpret the ideas. The foundation of the Declaration and the Constitution was clearly stated - "... to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.." based upon natural law which the framers considered eternal. England's laws were created and executed to protect the King and his subjects were there to obey his proclamations. As Dr. David Ramsay explained in his elegant “Dissertation on ... Citizenship” from 1789.
About Citizens and Subjects Ramsay said:
“The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.”
Dr. Ramsay, one of our presidents between 1776 and 1787, and our first Congressional Historian, also explained:
"Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
The Obots will no doubt continue to talk among themselves with the goal of drowning this most cogent thread in irrelevant citations. On many threads they continue the dialog with each other, using the usual name calling and citing obscure and irrelevant references, probably to make the whole exercise seem silly. Don't waste your time trying to debate them. They only want to quench the rational discussion, and will repeat the nonsense many of us have been debunking for going on four years. Read original sources, or read the rebuttals to all these claims in the archives of either Leo Donfrio’s or Mario Appuzo’s Natural Born Citizen blogs.
Your response is predictably juvenile and has established nothing to refute the point of what I said. Exactly what I was describing in my last paragraph - personal insults (”Obama troops”, questioning honesty and motives, etc). Declarations by the U.S. Supreme Court and other legal precedents and rulings are not “irrelevant citations” just because they don’t fit with the grossly incomplete arguments you have presented.
Your comment about Wong Kim Ark case does not appear to be accurate - the Court cites Waite’s comments as just one of numerous of other cases and commentaries on what makes a citizen a citizen - the very long narrative contains multiple citations of commentaries / rulings and common law understandings that natural-born means those born within the realm - and cites more U.S. cases than I cited above in the narrative which make that exact declaration that the phrase natural-born in the Constitution is that of the English common law. I also do not see that appearing in the closing remarks where the final ruling is made as you claimed - it is much, much earlier in the text. Actually it would appear that although they do make references that there is no indication he has renounced his loyalties to the country (which is an obvious reference to the extensive discussion in the natural-born / common law sections of the narrative), the court does not actually make a declaration that he is ‘natural-born’ (nor does it say they are making a distinction of him being ‘native born’ as you claimed)...it appears their only goal was to establish he had the right of citizenship one way or the other as the case was about him being declared a noncitizen.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html