[Mr Rogers]

WKA accepted natural born subject in English common law as the key to understanding natural born citizen in the Constitution. And in English common law, BOTH parents could be aliens, and the child a natural born subject UNLESS the parents were diplomats, or members of an invading army.

WKA would need to be overturned for Obama to be ruled ineligible based on his father’s citizenship.

[RegulatorCountry]

Wong Kim Ark determined that Mr. Wong was a 14th Amendment citizen. That was the decision of the court. Relying upon ober dicta to the exclusion of that decision, particularly when the one form of citizenship, that of the 14th Amendment citizen, was originally bestowed upon individuals who were not born citizens at all, has not been a particularly fruitful tactic in any court of law.

But, let's just run with the odd rationalizations against the so-called "birther" Constitutional argument for a minute. Given the peculiar, opposing argument that there are strictly and only two forms of citizenship rather than two basic means of obtaining a variety of forms of citizenship, an argument that flies in the face of history by the way, this would mean that these original 14th Amendment citizens were ipso facto naturalized. They certainly weren't born citizens, since they weren't citizens at all. That was the basis for the amendment, denial of citizenship.

By what sort of flying backflip of tortured logic, then, does Mr. Wong Kim Ark's having been deemed a 14th Amendment citizen somehow equate to having altered a completely separate Constitutional eligibility requirement upon the basis of a question that was not before the court?