“Sorry, but this is a delusional fantasy that I have disproven several times.”
I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with a fool. I’ve posted both a long extract, and a link where anyone who reads this thread can read what the US Supreme Court said - for themselves. Here it is again:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
And here is how the DISSENT protested that decision:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Now, you say I have a delusional fantasy that this applies.
My response is simple: All 50 states, all 50 state legislatures, all 50 state DAs, every congressman and every court agrees with MY “delusional fantasy”. The GOP & Rush Limbaugh agree with my “delusional fantasy”.
WorldNutDaily is on your side.
I cite decisions, you cite single sentence extracts. I provide links, you do not.
We’ll let everyone who reads this thread decide if there is a vast conspiracy that includes Rush, the SCOTUS, every state, the GOP & every Congressman, while you alone know the truth.
Says the guy who copies and pastes as much irrelevant dicta as he can find when can't refute the specific argument that I've already proven.
And here is how the DISSENT protested that decision:
The dissent wasn't protesting the decision. Fuller was responding to a claim made in the appeal based on the lower court's decision. The majority opinion offered NOTHING that suggested anything close to what Fuller was objecting to. The meat of Fuller's actual full objection (pun intended) was that the U.S. could not override the treaty with China that prevented its subjects from becoming U.S. citizens. Gray used English common law to bolster his own argument about the sovereign rights of the U.S., ignoring that the Constitution places itself on the same legal level as international treaties.
I recommend everyone should read Wong Kim Ark thorughly, unlike Mr. Rogers has. Notice how Gray never uses the term natural-born citizen after citing and affirming the Minor definition. He could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen, so he invented his own type of Constitutional citizenship, based on English common law and by perverting the subject clause of the 14th amendment.