The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs?complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it.
And then, in the footnotes on page 17 running to page 18 we have:
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
15 We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
As I said, CYA.
I’m not seeing any problem with that. None at all. Does it in any way contradict the the ONE SENTENCE holding? Nope. Slam dunk!
parsy, who says please hurry, its almost 3:30 here. I gots to go to bed by then.
Troll Parsy didn't want to be bothered to read the asterisk footnote. She'd rather swallow the leftist propaganda on Ankeny completely.