Replies

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.

You are trying to think with someone else's brain.

We're all trying to think with someone else's brain. You're trying to think with the government attorney's brain, to dismiss the significance of their question; edge919's trying to think with Fuller's brain to explain why, when he wrote "I disagree with the court," he didn't mean his court but some other one. It's a necessary part of interpreting the words of people long dead.