One of the great weaknesses of Wong Kim Ark is that the second paragraph you quote: "The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established," is factually incorrect.
First it is simply stupid to say that the English rule was in effect in the English Colonies. Of course it was. That's why we fought a revolution.
And you can be sure, because I will tell you it is so, that this "same rule" was NOT in effect in all the newly independent colonies, which were very quick to set their own standards, most of which disavowed the English rule.
And it very definitely did not continue to prevail after the adoption of the Constitution as could have been determined by a very minimal amount of research, which the court at the time must have felt to be beneath its status.
And we're left with people like you who hew to a nonsense line so strictly as to make one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for.
I think it is possible that you are actually a paid operative of the Obama machine. How else to explain both your obstinacy on this point and your continued presence here?
You don't get to pretend a Supreme Court decision doesn't exist because you disagree with it. Doesn't work that way. And it is very much on point.
They were deciding Wong's status. That quote is part of the line of reasoning in reaching that determination. What they wrote there very much applied to Wong. More importantly, it appies to anyone born in the United States. It's quite clear. You can't claim somehow what is written there doesn't include someone born in Hawaii.
"First it is simply stupid to say that the English rule was in effect in the English Colonies. Of course it was. That's why we fought a revolution."
It's noted that you think a large number of judges that have served in the US throughout its history are "stupid", but that says more about Birther legal analysis than it does those judges.
We fought a revolution to be independent of British RULE, not the principles of Brithish LAW. Two different things. We did in fact inherit the traditions of Britain's legal system, and much of English Common Law. You may recall discussions about the historical meanings of "high crimes and misdemeanors" during Clinton's impeachment.
You are mistaken, and are basically taking the position that it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says, you disagree, so you are right. I don't think so.
"And we're left with people like you who hew to a nonsense line so strictly as to make one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for."
The nonsense line is thinking that you overrule the Supreme Court. It makes one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for by Obama to make conservatives look bad.