I have argued with "sometimeslurker" who asserted that the attorneys for the government argued that it would make Wong Kim Ark eligible for the Presidency, to which I replied that perhaps their argument is exactly why the court used the term "citizen" instead of "natural born citizen"? The Government attorneys made them aware of the danger and they therefore avoided it by choosing the wording they used.
Yes, I believe Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly, but even in it's wrongness it did not go so far as to make Presidents of Anchor babies.
Wrongly decided or not it is the controlling law.
There is info out there that indicates even Scalia would not be prone to overturn it.
I will just have to disagree with you. The decision was AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
The dissent knew exactly what the majority was holding and you can see it in his dissent...and that is...Ark was eligible to run for President.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was known that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen as outlined in the brief-which would have been argued before the court - and the decision is flat out in response to that question before the court.
It had to be.
Here is the question. What is the answer.
Lower court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Did you see any exception written??? NO.
They answered The United States of America. Ark is a natural born citizen.
It’s too bad that there isn’t a readily available record of the oral argument.
There is a possibility that is quite within reason given the mess of this decision. They intentionally had to twist and turn even their own decision in Elk to get to the outcome.
Perhaps this was one of the times they wanted to keep the whole matter confusing - or perhaps they didn’t think it was necessary since the question was already stated before them and everyone knew what it was about - or perhaps the reeason is they were inept...or any myriad of other reasons.
We don’t know. All we know is:
There is no doubt that the question before them was whether Ark was a natural born citizen as per the lower court decision.
The lower court discussed the CONTROLLING law that make Ark A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and SCOTUS affirmed.
Here is something that might be easier to get my point across.
Is the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment but a declaratory of the common-law doctrine?
Controlling authority over the lower court said YES in those words.
Now go back and look at the extensive discussion of the common law doctrine as it pertains to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by Justice Gray.
So basically the various courts reject Vattel and say that the 14th Amendment as it pertains to citizenship is just common law doctrine. The lower court might have entertained Vattel but said they could not because CONTROLLING authority said they could not. They left it open for SCOTUS to come in and change everything.
SCOTUS DECLINED.
They had the opportunity to embrace Vattel BUT REJECTED IT.
So , what does the common law doctrine discussed by the various sources in the lower court case and by SCOTUS SAY????
Ark is a natural born citizen.