Replies

As for where this issue came from, I've already explained. It was posited in the government's appeal.

But what difference does that make? The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States. If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision. So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

But what difference does that make?

A lot. It simply shows this judge was taking considerations from a variety of sources, not just from the opinion of the majority. His rejection of the majority decision may be justified upon several things that are neither, mentioned, implied, nor presumed from that opinion.

The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States.

By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.

If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision.

It was based on a citation of a separate case mentioned in the District Court opinion. The appeal proposed a question based on a speculative outcome. It's not based on a holding of the District Court's decision. It didn't declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen; it cited a separate case that did declare a child of Chinese subjects to be natural-born. That's not a binding precedent, especially when the 9-0 decision in Minor contradicts that possibility.

So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

The problem is that there is NOTHING in the majority opinion that says this nor implies it. All we have is a question in the appeal and an answer in the dissent. Neither the appeal nor the dissent provide the legal precedent for defining NBC, especially when the majority opinion affirms the one, true and exclusive definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents.

But what difference does that make? The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States. If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision. So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

You are trying to think with someone else's brain. Just because they may have thought that, doesn't make it so. As has been demonstrated, the Court could reject that argument while still asserting WKA is a "citizen". (Which happend to be the ruling. "Citizen." Not "Natural born citizen.") Beyond that, their argument might have just been a last ditch attempt to sway the court to side with them. Lawyers want to win, you know.