Congratulations! I am proud of you!
Now lets take your point.
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”
WHAT THAT MEANS: Is that since it ain’t defined, the Wong court has to determine what the Framers meant. After reading Wong, you will now realize that is exactly what the Wong court did. That is why you see all those wierd cites to Coke, and other people in England. Coke by the way, was an English Judge, so the cite is to his decision.
So, your blurb means nothing, except TO BACK UP WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU. Wong is good law. It was based on the original intent of the Framers as determined by the Court.
Now, today, an attorney could argues that the Wong court got it wong, er wrong. He might win. I doubt it. Two reasons:
....1. The Wong Court didn’t make a mistake. They got it right.
....2. Wong is established law, and to overturn requires a real real real good reason, which don’t exist.
That’s the reality. You know its reality because I gave yu a link to the 3 month old Indiana case.
Now, I have a question for you: Why did i say your Blackstone statement was crazy and bizarre? If you know, feel free to say so.
parsy, who is so proud you read the dang case!
> The Wong Court didn’t make a mistake. They got it right.
If Wong Kim Ark got it right, why did we need to pass:
The 1924 Immigration Act for American Indians?
The 1946 Filipino Naturalization Act for Filipinos?
The 1952 Immigration Act for Chinese Americans?