I will point out three things about the Wong Kim Ark decision.
It does not use the words "Natural born" in the ruling. Ink and paper were not so dear that they could not have added the words if they wanted to. Like the authors of the 14th amendment, those words were INTENTIONALLY omitted.
2. It makes no mention whatsoever of the War of 1812, the focus of which was very much about the difference between an American citizen and a British Subject. It has been alleged that they intentionally omitted it because it did not support the conclusion to which they had already made up their mind.
3. The Wong court is the exact same court that ruled "separate but equal" in the Plessy v Ferguson decision a year earlier. This was one of the most infamous decisions in Supreme Court History, and the Judgement of the court was this: Not all "citizens" are created equal. Some are more equal than others.
I suspect that the Wong decision was a walkback from the Plessy decision, which provoked an outcry. They went too far in the one direction, so to compensate, they went too far in the other.
I will point out three things about the Wong Kim Ark decision.It does not use the words "Natural born" in the ruling. Ink and paper were not so dear that they could not have added the words if they wanted to. Like the authors of the 14th amendment, those words were INTENTIONALLY omitted.
That's been covered in another post. The core reasoning of a case is binding precedent just as much as the final statement is. This is basic law, which is routinely ignored by DiogenesLamp whenever it suits him.
Ah, but in Minor v. Happersett, he picks out one or two sentences that don't even have to do with the case at hand, and argue that they "prove" his claim.
Completely hypocritical, and a mangling of the law.
2. It makes no mention whatsoever of the War of 1812, the focus of which was very much about the difference between an American citizen and a British Subject. It has been alleged that they intentionally omitted it because it did not support the conclusion to which they had already made up their mind.
So the conclusion is supposedly somehow invalid because the Supreme Court doesn't talk about the War of 1812?
Court cases cite legal precedent. They don't generally talk about such things as wars.
3. The Wong court is the exact same court that ruled "separate but equal" in the Plessy v Ferguson decision a year earlier. This was one of the most infamous decisions in Supreme Court History, and the Judgement of the court was this: Not all "citizens" are created equal. Some are more equal than others.
Note what we don't have here: Any analysis of the Court's reasoning in Wong. The argument is basically, "They got it wrong with Plessy, so they must've gotten it wrong with Wong as well."
Oh. And this is from the exact same guy who has regularly tried to make his case by quoting one of the Justices in the most infamous decision in American history - the infamous Dred Scott case that ruled that Dred Scott was was "property" and not a "person," and that black people were not and could never become US citizens.