[savedbygrace]

Answer one simple question: Was the Court, in Wong Kim Ark, ruling on citizenship or natural born citizenship? Only one is correct.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Are you trying to argue that because the Court "only" ruled that Wong Kim Ark was "...at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States," they had nothing to say about "natural-born" citizenship? That's a disingenuous argument, at best.

I'll say it one more time: the term "natural-born" is not defined in our Constitution. Consequently, "natural-born" does not simply mean what you want it to mean.

For problems like these, we have a Supreme Court to intepret our Constitution. Even though neither Minor v. Happersett nor United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly dealt with the question of what "natural-born" means, the question was nevertheless answered because it was so closely related to the explicit issues at hand. You can disagree with the conclusions of Chief Justice Waite and Justice Gray. You can even dismiss them as garbage judicial activism if you like. But you can't pretend that they never made any judgments on the meaning of "natural-born."

You know what I just realized? Neither you nor MHGinTN has cited a definition of "natural-born." Could it be because you know that jurisprudence is not in your favor?

[MHGinTN]

You might also note that this twister asserts that you and I have not shown a definition which the poster then assumes to define by default. This sleight of hand is a typical liars tool. TechnicalEditor, Non-Sequitur, WOSG; jamese77, and several other agitprops use the same technique and live for the moment they can claim ‘You lose’ or ‘I win’, which of course is hallmark of the liar's trade since it is never about truth for they have no regard for what that which they deem a ‘malleable commodity’.