The Judges said he was a 'citizen of the United States' IN THE DETERMINATION while YOU claim they said he was a natural born citizen.
Of course they did.
The question they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States?" In the end, that was the question they answered.
Do you not understand that the Supreme Court answers the question that is asked?
And do you not understand how legal precedent works? Obviously not.
Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
They examined his situation in great detail, concluding with absolute clarity that for their purposes, the words "citizen" and "subject" were - in their words - PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS.
In other words, we said "citizen," they said "subject." For the purposes of the Court, the two words meant essentially the same thing.
They also said that the EXACT SAME RULE for determining NATURAL BORN SUBJECTHOOD or NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP had always applied.
And they noted that by that rule, the child born on the soil of the country (England, the Colonies, or the United States), whether his parents were citizens or aliens, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT, or a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, whichever term was preferred at the time.
And that decision is BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT, because it was the entire rationale on which their ruling was based.
And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS IN ANY WAY UNCLEAR OR AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ANY OF THIS.
It's all pretty basic.
From a legal standpoint, the decision in Wong finding Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen is made, if not of steel, at least of good, solid, reinforced concrete. And the side comment in Minor is nothing more than tissue paper.
But you and the other birthers hold up the tissue paper and proclaim it to be concrete, and point to the concrete and proclaim it to be tissue paper.
Really.
Again, there is nothing in the slightest unclear or ambiguous about any of this.
BTW - you never told me if you get paid by the word.
I never got around to answering that bit. Unfortunately, I may not have time to answer every word of your nonsense.
Let's be perfectly frank here. You and I both know that the question is a thoroughly dishonest one.
You don't really believe I'm being paid. You simply want to find a way to smear me, since I'm a threat to the fairy tale that you want to believe and promote to other people.
Nonetheless, I'm happy to play your little game. I will give you a perfectly honest answer to your dishonest and unreasonable little question, if you will answer my perfectly reasonable one, which I asked you long before you asked me, and which you have repeatedly and adamantly refused to answer.
If I can demonstrate conclusively that:
1. The phrase in our Constitution isn't just "law of nations," it's "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
2. Vattel was only ONE writer, out of a bunch, on the "law of nations;"
3. A MUCH better-known writer than Vattel wrote a VERY well known book with an entire chapter entitled, "OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS;"
4. That writer was quoted 16 times by the Founding Fathers for every 1 time that they quoted Vattel;
5. Vattel never said a word about Felonies or the high Seas, and only mentioned Pirates once in his whole book, whereas the far better-known author discussed ALL of the above in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations;
6. Yes, the Founders purchased that author's book for use in the Senate;
then will you admit that Vattel probably was NOT the source of the mention of "law of nations" in our Constitution?
If you will answer that honest and reasonable question, then I will happily answer your dishonest and unreasonable one. I will even tell you, if I'm being paid, how much per word I get.
Non answer to the assertion.
-----
And do you not understand how legal precedent works? Obviously not.
TRANSLATION: You are too stupid to understand.
-----
Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
An odd statement considering you previously admitted in THIS VERY POST;
The question they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States?" In the end, that was the question they answered.
LOL! You contradict yourself.
-----
And that decision is BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT, because it was the entire rationale on which their ruling was based.
The problem that you continue to fail to comprehend is that the 'birth' IN something was not a physical location.....
but a political affiliation
One cannot be born INTO something unless one already has a PRIOR connection to it
That's true for our country:
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
AS WELL AS the laws of others:
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
1963 Kenyan Constitution- Chapter 6- Citizenship, Section 87
-----
I do believe this will be my last post to you on this thread.
You have undeniably proven you not only have no true interest in the subject, you are nothing more than an intellectual roadblock to those who do.