You're the dummy who originally agreed with r9etb that because there "are some around here" who say that Gray did not say WKA was a natural born citizen therefore he was not, which r9etb followed up with - "...Which is hooey.”
Then you exclaimed "Exactly." So again, if it is "hooey," then you agree that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen.
You further remarked,
"They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not."
So you concluded that since Justice Gray was not "deciding presidential eligibility" he therefore did not state or affirm Ark was a natural born citizen.
I then showed you your premise is flawed because Elg was ruled to be a natural born citizen and she was not running for president or was her case about presidential eligibility.
For clarification’s sake, I wasn’t calling you or anyone in particular a “dummy.” I was putting that in the mouth of the the fictitious document that explains why Elg spoke to natural born status while Ark didn’t. In other words, anyone who doesn’t see that’s it’s so bleeding plain that Ark isn’t natural born that it’s not worth addressing is a dummy.
“You’re the dummy who originally agreed with r9etb that because there ‘are some around here’ who say that Gray did not say WKA was a natural born citizen therefore he was not, which r9etb followed up with - ‘...Which is hooey.’”
Then you exclaimed ‘Exactly.’”
Yes, it was hooey. Not saying someone is a natural born citizen is not evidence that he isn’t a natural born citizen.
“So again, if it is ‘hooey,’ then you agree that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen.”
Yes, I agree. Though, unlike you, I don’t maintain the decision (or lackthereof) proves my point.
“So you concluded that since Justice Gray was not ‘deciding presidential eligibility’ he therefore did not state or affirm Ark was a natural born citizen.”
Yes. Or, rather, not “therefore.” He could have affirmed or disaffirmed as he so chose, but didn’t have to do either, and in fact didn’t.
“I then showed you your premise is flawed because Elg was ruled to be a natural born citizen and she was not running for president or was her case about presidential eligibility.”
Just because they addressed it in her case (and she was found to be natural born) does not mean that every citizenship case wherein the plaintiff lacks her particular qualifications and that doesn’t address natural born status is automatically to be taken as denying said status. I bring you back to the original post, to which I added “exactly”:
“There are some around here who see this as inadequate, as it doesn’t say ‘natural born,’ so he must not be a natural born citizen.
Which is hooey.”
It IS hooey. Elg addressing it has no bearing Ark. I’m sure you can find ancillary issues discussed in the Ark decision that don’t come up in the Elg decision, which would tell us nothing in itself about the Elg case.