Justice Gray laid out in the final few paragraphs exactly how the case was decided. That being on the basis of the 14th amendment, and somewhat tangentially that Wong had not expatriated himself. The rest may have something to do with how it was argued, I suppose, but I have not read the arguments and briefs, and I doubt anyone else here has either.
But the fact remains that the case was not about "natural born citizenship", it was about citizenship. Wong was not running for President, and that is the only time Natural Born citizenship matters. Any mention of "natural born citizenship" is dicta, or in most cases merely part of citations or quotes where it would be awkward, at best, to remove.
And the two are the same. Read the Indiana case at page 16 where it says the citizenship language parts in 14th and Art. II have been read in tandem since Minor and Happersatt, which was affirmed by the Wong Court. That’s the way the Wong case reads. You can not read it without coming to that opinion. That’s why the Wong Court and the Indiana court went back to 1608. It was two-fer. And in Wong, its in like the first or second paragraph as I recall. I can go grab it again if necessary.
parsy, who is hurrying
I have a link to the briefs if you want them.
http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/case.htm
I haven’t had time to read them yet. I don’t have a printer hooked up yet, and I am used to printing off decisions and using a yellow/pink hiliter to zero in on relevant points and language.
parsy, who has been staying busy
“But the fact remains that the case was not about “natural born citizenship”, it was about citizenship. Wong was not running for President, and that is the only time Natural Born citizenship matters.”
Sorta, but during the Wong analysis, they ended up doing both. The Wong court knew about the NBC clause. They mention the NBC language often. Yet, they say there are only two kinds of citizens-—born here’s and naturalized—and the way they got there was adopting language and English common law as indicative of the Framer’s intent. But since Wong wasn’t running for President, they didn’t need an extra sentence to cover that.
But it is clear that it does. They could have said, “The 14th covers indicates we have 2 kinds of citizens, and BTW, if the NBCX question ever comes up, that makes 3. They didn’t. Because the analysis CLEARLY covers that point.
Is that just my opinion? No. It is the common sense view of most people.
Look at Indiana again:
The Birthers: “Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’ “(page 12)
Now, the Court: “ Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)
And remember the Birther Admission: Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject....
parsy, who is in the majority for once