[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?

[savedbygrace]

Non-responsive. It was a choice-of-two question. Pick one or the other.

BTW, the Constitution doesn’t define Bill of Attainder or ex post facto either. Why is that? Serious question, and the answer is obvious.