If, as you contend, the Founders believed a woman could walk across the border and give birth to a brand-spankin' NEW natural born citizen within 9 months, why did they even bother with the naturalization process?
Because people aren't just born here, they also come here from other countries and want to become US citizens.
That's pretty basic, wouldn't you say?
And you have yet to answer the question as to how you come to the conclusion they said he was a natural born citizen when they THEMSELVES said that whether he was natural born wasn't even the question before the court?
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Okay. This is the point at which, if you have the slightest amount of self-respect, you slink away from this conversation and never dare to even pretend to understand it again.
Truly.
Because it is absolutely clear that you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
You don't understand law. You don't understand legal precedent. You seem to be mostly just repeating stuff you've heard other people claim. And you liked the claim that it takes two parents to make a natural born citizen, so you latched onto it, and repeat it without really understanding anything about the subject.
Because you are just some woman in Texas, who acts like she has a clue what she's talking about, when she doesn't.
In fact, at this point it becomes frankly embarrassing for me to even talk about this stuff with you. Because it is so excruciatingly clear that you don't have a clue.
The case we were discussing was US v Wong Kim Ark. And you, unbelievably, have just asked me:
And you have yet to answer the question as to how you come to the conclusion they said he was a natural born citizen when they THEMSELVES said that whether he was natural born wasn't even the question before the court?
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Yes, those words do appear in US v Wong Kim Ark.
AS A QUOTE.
The Wong Court was quoting the MINOR Court, when the MINOR Court said that THEY (the Minor Court) were not going to decide the issue in THAT case - THAT IS, MINOR.
The case referred to by the words, "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts," is NOT US v Wong Kim Ark.
It is MINOR V. HAPPERSETT.
And this is the case that you and other birthers have insisted, despite the clear words you yourself just quoted, DID supposedly "resolve those doubts."
I will give you this much credit: You have read the words correctly. You've even interpreted their meaning correctly.
BUT YOU HAVE APPLIED THOSE WORDS TO WONG, WHEN THEY NEVER APPLIED TO WONG. THEY APPLIED TO MINOR, THE CASE THAT YOU CLAIM SUPPOSEDLY DECIDED THE ISSUE.
Again: Wong quoted Minor saying THAT THEY (THE MINOR COURT) WERE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THE ISSUE.
It is hard to imagine a more fundamentally incompetent error.
If you can't even get correct what case a quote applies to, there is no way that you can pretend to intelligently discuss case law, or even to have a clue what you're talking about.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you need to go back to being a Texas Mama, and leave discussing case law to people who are at least capable of reading a case well enough to appear as if they have a clue.
and I really don't care.
That was needlessly cruel.