At the Supreme Court, they call it stare decisis:
At the Supreme Court, they call it stare decisis:
eggs zactly!!!
The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him [a person born abroad to one citizen parent] to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
The case isn't a question of whether Bellei was NBC. It was about whether it was constitutional to strip his citizenship, which was granted at birth. The majority held that it was. All 9 justices operated on the basis of Bellei being naturalized. That wasn't even an issue, question, doubt. That Bellei was naturalized has all the hallmarks of settled law.
The dissent characterizes Bellei thusly ...
Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons "born or naturalized in the United States" includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.That succinctly states the difference between the majority and the dissent. If Bellei was NBC, this case would not be before the court, or at least there would be no split.
Now what were you saying about stare decisis?