The Top Ten “Birther” arguments against Ted Cruz, and why they are completely wrong

Western Free Press ^ | 3/13/13 | Greg Contario & Patrick Colliano

[DiogenesLamp]

You came up with a good analogy since Roe v. Wade is stare decisis.

Yes, Roe v Wade is a very good analogy to using the British meaning of "Natural born subject" for "Natural born citizen."

In both cases, it is judicially created nonsense bearing no resemblance to the intent of the constitutional provision cited.

STARE DECISIS
Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

Which in the vernacular means "Because *I* say so." Which of course, is not a sound or rational basis for law.

[Nero Germanicus]

The federal government’s attorneys in arguing that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen made sure that the Justices of the Supreme Court knew exactly what was at stake:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”—Government’s Appellant Brief, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

[DiogenesLamp]

The federal government’s attorneys in arguing that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen made sure that the Justices of the Supreme Court knew exactly what was at stake:

I put as much stock in Wong Kim Ark as I do in Dred Scott. Both can be viewed as political based decisions having nothing to do with what was actually the law, but opposite in Directions. As with Dred Scott, it is mostly Republicans vs Mostly Democrats, all on their respective sides.

I have read the debates on the 14th amendment, and it is clear that they never intended to make citizens out of transient aliens.

Regarding what others say about the court's opinion, and what they claim was intended by their ruling, A D*** I do not give. If their decision is interpreted to give citizenship to the children of transient aliens, then it is just wrong.

I personally don't think that was their intent, and it matters not at all that other people claim it was.

Any court which can rule Plessy v Ferguson tacitly accepts distinctions and differences between classes of citizenship. They explicitly spelled out that some citizens had higher rights than others, and if Wong is interpreted in that light, it is not contradictory with Plessy.

Plessy is consistent with there being a class of "Citizens" and a higher class of "Natural citizens." I do not think the court reversed itself with Wong. I think people just interpret Wong incorrectly.

[Nero Germanicus]

There are significant historical differences between the Scott and Wong decisions.
Scott was case law for only nine years. Wong has been precedential for 116 years.
Scott v. Sandford was rendered moot by an outraged majority in Congress which passed legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was vetoed by President Johnson but the veto was overridden by two-thirds majorities in both Houses.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been cited more than 1000 times in subsequent court decisions. Even with the Obama/natural born citizen controversy of the last seven years, there has been no serious attempt to overturn U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Congress, as it did with Scott, can pass legislation to render Wong moot or to clarify its meaning.