Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: parsifal

Nowhere in the Wong Ark opinion does it say he was a natural born citizen. As far as GrAy goes is to call Ark a native born. The Supreme Court has reserved the term for people born in the US to citizens of foreigners. GrAy states native born in the facts of the case and does the same in his conclusion of his opinion. In his dictum, GrAy makes a comparison between a native born, [Wong Ark], and a natural born citizen. If the Obot websites tell you different, they are misleading you down the wrong path.


1,201 posted on 02/25/2010 10:38:23 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1186 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

I’ve read the case several times. Wong is a citizen. he is a citizen because he is born here, and his parents don’t fit into the exceptions. There are only two kinds of citizens. The ones born here, and the naturalized one. Throughout the case they rely on English common law that being born in the country makes one a natural born subject. That is the same thing as a natural born citizen.

The Indiana case is reasoned out the same way. I think I gave you that link. If not, here it is. Pages 13-18. Short, sweet, simple, if you’re born here, you’re a natural born citizen.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

parsy


1,222 posted on 02/25/2010 11:37:29 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1201 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson