[Cboldt]

I hadn't seen this one before. Interesting, in part, because it claims to have been published in 2006.

Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided? by P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006

It doesn't argue the question of "natural born," but argues that ALL "citizenship" granted under the rubric of Wong Kim Ark is incorrect, and inconsistent with the rule of Elk.

Pretty easy read.

[editor-surveyor]

WKA was certainly clumsily written, but they definitely saw the difference between 14th ammendment citizenship, which they named Native citizenship, and Natural Born citizenship.

[Cboldt]

Just thinking aloud, after skimming through the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion, that the prevailing wisdom (which I think is in error) holds that "native born" and "natural born" are and always have been synonymous.

In other words, the assertion becomes that one could view Article II of the constitution as requiring the president be native born, and it would change nothing.

Why then, have both terms, if they are indistinguishable?

[El Sordo]

Ping to an interesting article in post #262.