“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
Again BOTH of you are wrong. ABSOLUTELY.
The Judge said for the purposes OF THIS CASE..he didnt need to go into the second definition. It was not relevant to the case. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE IN HIS CASE THEREFORE NO DECISION THAT IS PRECEDENT.
How hard is that for you to understand?
In any event, HE DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEVANT.
If you do not understand this concept- try this case
“Despite the problematic aspects of the ordinance, we cannot say that the ordinance is unconstitutional in every application, primarily because the ordinance did not have an unconstitutional effect in the test case that led to the instant suit”
GET IT.
Btw, the Wong case IS AFTER the cases you listed. Surely you know what that means.
The stuff about Mccain is irrelevant.
If you can’t understand the concept of Precedent..then I am not even going to bother with the stuff you are citing about Mccain.
All of your, shall we say loosely - 'arguments'- sound like liberal talking points right out of a liberal playbook who believe in a 'living and breathing' constitution. (barf)
If you want to take the LIBERAL viewpoint that our Constitution is a LIVING and BREATHING document to be re-interpreted AT WHIM instead of being strictly interpreted AS WRITTEN have at it. I do not think that way, I am an originalist who believes in the constitution as orginally written and is not to be tampered with. Defining Natural Born Citizen