Replies

Dicta are not binding as precedents in decisions.

What's obvious to you clearly wasn't obvious to the Indiana Court of Appeals. But that's right; all three Judges on that case are judicial activists, even the Judge who wrote the opinion, despite being appointed by a Governor who just yesterday defunded Planned Parenthood in his state. Judge Brown was protecting somebody, but who exactly, I don't know.

We can continue bantering back and forth, but the following remain undisputed:

NBC isn't defined in the Constitution. Thus, as Chief Justice Waite recognized in Minor, "resort must be had elsewhere..."
Chief Justice Waite sought "common law" to define "natural-born citizen." Which "common law" exactly is unclear, but he did not cite de Vattel anywhere in the Court's unanimous opinion.
Justice Gray performed a careful and thorough analysis of English common law to conclude that "the same rule" was in force at the time of ratification. Five other Justices joined his opinion, none of whom was appointed by allegedly ineligible President Arthur. de Vattel was not cited at all in Justice Gray's opinion.
Writing for the Indiana Court of Appeals, Judge Brown referred to Wong Kim Ark to conclude that "persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."" Judge Brown was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels, who only yesterday defunded Planned Parenthood in his state.

What is crystal clear to you wasn't or isn't crystal clear at all to the Judges and Justices involved in the above cases, with the possible exception of the two dissenting Justices in Wong Kim Ark, who did cite de Vattel once in their dissent.

Moreover, you still can't explain why five Justices, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur, joined Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, and your allegation that he did what he did to "protect" a President who had been dead for over a decade at the time of writing leads to a conspiracy theory, given that Justices must be confirmed by Congress.

We can explain it to someone who makes rational responses. No one can explain it to a person who cannot or refuses to give a rational response to the routine observation that the court cases you rely upon made comments which do not bind a later court to the acceptance of the dicta used in the prior courts' opinions.

The Indiana court made a decision regarding a lack of standing and/or jurisdiction, which made no binding decisions about the natural born citizen question whatsoever. They did comment on the question, but this dicta like all dicta is commentary, which is not binding upon any later courts or court decisions. In a proper and legal trial, the parties have an opportunity to present evidence to refute court claims. No such opportunity to try the the argument with the discovery and presentation of the evidence for the eligibility of a person to the Office of the President has ever been tried before a U.S. court of law. That includes Indiana.

Moreover, you still can't explain why five Justices, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur, joined Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, and your allegation that he did what he did to "protect" a President who had been dead for over a decade at the time of writing leads to a conspiracy theory, given that Justices must be confirmed by Congress.

Unless a Justice also writes their own opinion, their joining in the decision does not necessarily indicate they agree with every sentence and phrase of the commentary. Justices often have their own and sometimes independent and contradictory reasons for joining the majority or minority opinion. They often do not comment on those reasons.

It is unfortunate that you resort to belittling the controversy as a "conspiracy theory" in order to smear the reputations of the people opposing your comments. It is an incontrovertible fact that President Chester Arthur appointed Horace Grey to the Supreme Court of the United States. It also an apparent fact that Chester Arthur's father was a British Subject with British citizenship when Chester Arthur was born in the United States. Under the interpretation of the Constitution that Chester Arthur was a natural born British citizen due to his father's British citizenship, Chester Arthur was not eligible to the Office of the President. In the event that Chester Arthur was discovered and found to be ineligible to the Office of the President, he could have been removed from office by the U.S. Congress, and all of his appointments and other acts would have been null and void as if they had never happened. Consequently, despite the fact that Chester Arthur was already out of office and deceased, Justice Grey's acts would also be null and void as well, and he would have to be removed from his office in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Given such circumstances, Justice Grey's unnecessary additional commentary about the natural born citizen clause in a case not addressing the question was in effect self-serving and an obvious conflict of interest, whether or not anyone can prove he was aware of the conflict of interest. So, no conspiracy theory is required to observe the obvious facts of the circumstances.