[MamaTexan]

It is simply a FALSE claim, and one which twists the Constitution, and for my part I think that if we value the Constitution it’s time we stopped indulging people who are twisting it and claiming it says stuff it doesn’t say.

LOL!

You mean like claiming the decision in Wong Kim Ark said he was a natural born citizen when not only did it not say that, it would have been legally impossible for the decision TO say that.

A court can only answer the question put before it.

[Jeff Winston]

A court can only answer the question put before it.

Oh. So you mean that Minor v. Happersett could not POSSIBLY define natural born citizenship, since the question before the Court was whether Virginia Minor should be allowed to vote?

By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Are you willing to go with the evidence on the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, or are you completely committed to believing whatever you want, no matter what the evidence?

Come on, now. It's one or the other.

[Mr Rogers]

The WKA decision spent half of the decision discussing natural born subject/citizen. It did so in response to the government's case, that specifically argued that WKA was NOT a natural born citizen. Thus it was a specific response to the charges brought against Wong Kim Ark, and was thus what the court held. The accusations the state brought against WKA can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA