Clearly, you don’t even believe Justice Fuller who indicated EXACTLY the ramifications of the majority opinion.
The Majority opinion said that the 14th Amendment was declaratory. That means Ark is a natural born citizen. Really, do you understand how to read a law case???
So I will just leave it that the COURT OF APPEALS SAYS YOU ARE WRONG. Obama is an NBC.
You got nothin’ to trump that.
Show me the case that trumps it.
Perhaps you should heed your own words before you tell others what to do.
Read the Court of Appeals case of Ankey.
So here it tis...
Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14
Footnote 14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
Even while Ark distinctly stated that the question was if he was a citizen "by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution".
*****
APPARENTLY, you DON'T know how to read a law case ...
People point to the dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as ”proof” that Ark was declared a natural-born citizen. Nothing is further from the truth.
DICTA are the opinions of a judge that DO NOT resolve or determine the outcome of a case.
For ALL of the dicta in the decision, the CRUX of the case is DECIDED in TWO [AND ONLY TWO] paragraphs. NO OTHER PARAGRAPHS ARE NECESSARY TO THE DECISION. READ the declaratory paragraph at the end of the decision. It MERELY states that Ark was a CITIZEN, by virtue of the 14th Amendment:
”The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Now, what is the SINGLE question referred to in the declaratory paragraph? Let us see:
”The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution …”
Notwithstanding these two paragraphs, the dicta [written by Justice Gray] in the Ark decision CLEARLY indicates that he EMPHATICALLY believed that Ark WAS an natural-born citizen. SO, WHY DIDN’T he say so in the declaratory paragraph?
There is ONLY one possible explanation. Justice Gray WOULD NOT have received a majority opinion IF he had INSISTED on declaring Ark a natural-born citizen. The OTHER justices WOULD NOT have concurred for the majority IF Gray INSISTED that Ark was natural-born. SO, the Court "split the baby".
Ark was declared to be a CITIZEN, by virtue of the 14th Amendment - and this was the CORRECT decision. BUT, the Court STOPPED SHORT of declaring him to be natural-born.
FYI:
Justice Gray’s reasoning in his dicta INCORRECTLY interpreted BOTH the precedent in Calvin’s Case [1608] AND the citation in Dicey. ADDITIONALLY, Calvin’s Case was correctly decided by Lord Coke's Court - BUT, they ERRED in describing the historical English Common Law.