[parsifal]

“but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power,”

I think I have already sent you the appropriate language
which refutes the permanent domicile stuff. Do I need to re -send it?

“DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark’s claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as “FACT”.
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...”

No, they did not have the internet in 1898. GOTCHA!!! (I am just doing an imitation of edge19!)

Actually, the point here is, Obama hasn’t had to present the COLB, because no court action has made it that far, yet. Should it, I fully expect him to have to present a certified COLB. Which I have no doubt he will.

“Yeah, I’ve seen it. I don’t think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn’t.”

No, I think you missed most of it. Wong came to the decision that a “natural born citizen” is one born inside the country, subject to the stated exemptions, which do not apply to Obama.

The question of whether there is some other qualification which is necessary for a president, HAS NOT yet been put to the SCOTUS. But, after reading Wong, should this matter ever get to SCOTUS, I know where I am going to put my money....

I sort of doubt that it will make to SCOTUS. Some lower federal court will so rule, and the appeals court will affirm, and SCOTUS will refuse to take. Unless SCOTUS has original jurisidiction in these questions, which I have not looked up.

parsy

[edge919]

I think I have already sent you the appropriate language which refutes the permanent domicile stuff. Do I need to re -send it?

Glutton for punishment?? Your refutation was shot down and you started acting out instead of providing a countern argument.

No, they did not have the internet in 1898. GOTCHA!!! (I am just doing an imitation of edge19!)

Not only is this something I've never posted, but you can't even get my username right. Must have left a humongous big bruise on that ego ... bigger than Obama's ears even. So sorry (not really).

[BP2]

Hmmm, let’s see what WONG KIM ARK v US says, referencing MINOR v. HAPPERSETT:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Wow. Sounds a bit like Vattel:

Palsy, are you NOW saying that Obama SR was a US Citizen?

[El Gato]

No, I think you missed most of it. Wong came to the decision that a “natural born citizen” is one born inside the country, subject to the stated exemptions, which do not apply to Obama.

They did no such thing. They came to the conclusion that he was a citizen at birth. Here is the question, followed by the conclusion: First the question:

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,

And the conclusion:

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.

Order affirmed.

You'll not see "Natural Born Citizen" in either of those. Everything in between is dicta.

"Natural-born" or "natural born" only appear in conjunction with "subject", except in quotes or references to "Minor v. Happersett" which repeats the Vattel defintion of Natural Born citizen, and in the quote, or discussion of it, from Binny, which distingues between "citizen child of an alien born in the country" and "natural born citizen".