Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mlo

Again, I believe you are profoundly wrong to put so much faith in Wong Kim Ark, perhaps the most notoriously wrongheaded Supreme Court decision of all time, but no matter how bad that decision might have been, it had NOT ONE THING to do with “natural born citizenship”.

In fact the Supreme Court has never had a case on point come before it, only tangential ones such as Wong Kim Ark and maybe a half dozen others, and NONE of the decisions support the notion that anything born in a catbox is, without further examination, undoubtedly a cat. Never.


85 posted on 10/16/2009 4:42:09 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: John Valentine
"Again, I believe you are profoundly wrong to put so much faith in Wong Kim Ark, perhaps the most notoriously wrongheaded Supreme Court decision of all time, but no matter how bad that decision might have been, it had NOT ONE THING to do with “natural born citizenship”."

Reading the words of the decision is not a matter of "faith". Your opinion may be that it is wrongheaded, but that doesn't make it so.

The plain words of the decision DO relate to "natural born citizenship". To claim otherwise it to be in denial. It's nonsense.

The court had to determine Wong's citizenship status by virtue of his birth. In doing so, they examined the whole question of citizenship at birth, in great detail. It goes for pages. The one passage I quoted directly speaks to natural born citizenship.

86 posted on 10/16/2009 8:51:04 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson