The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.
So for his issue to become effective law the Court would have to reverse itself on a precedent that has stood more or less unchallenged for well over 100 years. For obvious reasons, this ain’t likely to happen.
The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.
{”I submit that both Wong Kim Ark and Obama’s supporters are wrong in concluding that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same thing as an English common law ‘natural born subject’.”}
The problem is that the decision in Wong Kim Ark NEVER said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.
I believe it said that Wong had all the same “rights” that a Natural Born Citizen has.
This is true.
So do naturalized citizens have ALL the rights of a Natural Born Citizen; however, naturalized citizens can’t hold the executive office of President Of The United States.
My understanding is that Wong was deemed a citizen (under the 14th amendment) but that the court never said he was a Natural Born Citizen, nor did it confer same on him.
STE=Q