Replies

typos fixed. You are misquoting the case. It was quite clear that he had the SAME rights as any other person born in the U.S. The Court couldn't be more crystal clear. You also have no evidence on the Arthur case. It was WIDELY reported in 1880 that Arthur's father was Irish born and, according to Arthur's own statement, that he had lived in the U.S. for at least ten years before Arthur's bith. Despite this, nobody, but Nobody, bothered even to ask Arthur if his father was a citizen at the time of his birth. Why?

To explain this, you have two alternatives. Either you must defend the view that people in 1880 were incredibly stupid compared to modern voters or, more logically, they didn't think that that fact made him ineligible. If you can find someone, anyone, who asked Arthur about this during this term OR if you find a case when Arthur falsey claimed his fatehrwas a citizen, I'll pay you 200 dollars. BTW, one of the dumbest of the dumb, if your theory is right, would be Mr. George D. Collins who despite his amazing intellect was too clueless to look into the issue!

Firstly, I can't have misquoted the Wong Kim Ark case, because I didn't quote it. Perhaps what you mean is that I have misinterpreted it. I have not, as I will demonstrate concluslively.

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the appellant, Mr Wong, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, Justice Gray cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

That's dicta, of course. But it proves that Justice Gray could not possibly have thought the decision he was rendering could have defined "natural born citizen" differently than as specified above. How can this be? It's because the precedent the court was setting had nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen," and only concerned itself with whether a person born in the US to non-citizen parents was a native citizen of the US (note: "native citizen" is not the same thing as "natural born citizen.") To prove me wrong, you need to find language in the Wong Kim Ark decision that specifically defines "natural born citizen" as meaning "anyone born in the US" (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats, of course.)

You won't be able to do that, because the decision says no such thing.

Nor did the decision say that those born in the US would be eligible to be President. It does say they have the same rights as other citizens, but serving as US President is not a right, it's a privilege reserved by the Constitution to those who meet specific requirements: A President must be 35 years of age, must have resided in the US for 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. So clearly, not all citizens qualify for the privilege of serving as President.

The evidence I have provided regarding Chester Arthur is irrefutable. That no one asked Arthur about the citizenshp status of his father proves that few knew the essential facts, and those that did know decided to keep quiet for reasons that should be obvious. The fact that no one bothered to ask could have many explanations, not one of them setting any legal or de facto precedents. The fact that article I referenced was written and published at that time, in that journal, proves irrefutably that a) the idea that "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of US-citizen parents was a well-founded and well-accepted legal position (the quote from the Wong Kim Ark case does the same,) and it proves that few, if any, readers would have realized, when reading the article, that Chester Arthur's Presidency was called into question by what the article said.

Thus, you are refuted.