[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

[Jeff Winston]

The WKA decision spent half of the decision discussing natural born subject/citizen.

Indeed it did.

I wonder whether MamaTexan has ever actually READ US v. Wong Kim Ark. Hey, that's a simple yes or no question. Let's ask her.

MamaTexan: Have you ever, prior to my posting this question, actually read the Opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark? Start to finish? Yes or no.

Ever notice how these birthers have a hard time answering simple questions? Like, if the evidence strongly indicates that "law of nations" in the Constitution came from somewhere other than Vattel, would you accept that?

[MamaTexan]

The WKA decision spent half of the decision discussing natural born subject/citizen

No, it was mentioned a scant six times. Four in the decision and twice in the dissent.

What you posted is the Appellants Brief, not the determination of the court.

[DiogenesLamp]

Will wonders never cease! Mr. Rogers posted something contrary to his own opinion!