Replies

Keep reading...

Why I have already proven my point.

You think like a liberal, you believe that the Supreme Court creates laws that are not written by the Congress or signed by the President but actually have more power than the Constitution itself.

Show me anywhere in the US constitution where it says that Common law overrides the Congress or the Constitution....

The Wong Ark opinion is bad for at least two reason:

It violated the intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment, and it violated a treaty with China that we would not make Chinese nationals citizens of the United States, both are US Constitution violations.

"Why I have already proven my point."

Oh? You have? You're gonna stop playing now? Because you miss all the fun of carefully getting to the truth by doing so. Well okay, since you have declared victory and gone home, let's cut to the chase.

First and foremost, Wong Kim Ark is not "trumped" by the Constitution or any Statutes because the former doesn't disagree with WKLA and the latter do not exist.

Oh, you say? The 1790 Naturalization Act contradicts it? Well sadly that presents you with two problems:

The first problem is that it doesn't exist. It did briefly, but it was repealed. Apparently Congress had second thoughts on the "definition" you are fond of and got rid of it. Quickly. But that's not the worst of your problems. Your worst problem is the definition itself.

Here it is" "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Darn. If (as you insist) this is the definition of natural born citizen, then children born in the United States are excluded. Because the definition specifies only children "that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States." If that is your position (i.e. that children born in the United States cannot be natural born citizens) then we got nothing to talk about, because you just crossed over in the bizarro universe.