Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

Read the brief by the United States in Wong Kim ark
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

It is also helpful to find the lower court case.

I wonder if you will stop quoting Wong Kim Ark once you really see what went down.

Note that the person in question was deemed A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Supreme Court affirmed the decision without exception.


742 posted on 01/21/2012 8:08:53 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies ]


To: RummyChick; edge919; BuckeyeTexan
“Note that the person in question was deemed A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

Not correct, IMO. But only SCOTUS can say ultimately regarding Obama, which is the question at hand.

WKA was deemed “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Note the distinction. Two different classes: citizens who are not NBC compared to citizens who are NBC. Both have the same citizen rights, but they are not the same regarding POTUS eligibility.

NBCs and other citizens have equal citizen rights, but the POTUS eligibility is a status at birth independent from citizenship rights.

The Minor court defined NBCs about which there were NO DOUBTS, but said there was doubt as to the citizenship but not the NBC status of children of aliens and foreigners born on US soil. The WKA court reached and resolved the citizenship doubts about WKA a baby born to alien parents on US soil. The WKA court did not change the NBC definition in Minor despite that claim in the non-binding dissent.

750 posted on 01/21/2012 9:04:41 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick

chick, I have read the appellants brief and the lower court case. It did NOT deem Ark to be a natural-born citizen. It called him a citizen, in part because of a citation to a similar case where the defandant WAS called a natural-born citizen. Gray framed the question in the Supreme Court in a way that has NOTHING to do with natural-born citizenship, and he specifically punted on the appellant’s lament.

Now get back to the question you’re avoiding. Gray cited Minor’s definition of NBC, and then affirmed that the holding was based on Minor being born in the country to citizen parents. Why did he do this when in your own words, the Minor court did NOT say she had citizen parents?? What would be the point??? Focus on THE question and try to answer it honestly.


752 posted on 01/21/2012 9:04:52 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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