squeegy, all you’re doing is showing that your head keeps exploding.
1) You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. You focus on the state of misery, yet do you see Gray say ANYTHING about that state when he cites Minor??? There’s a reason. Come back when you understand the purpose and the impact of SCOTUS decisions.
2) You’ve been shown TWO landmarks cases that use the same definition of NBC and all you’re doing is denying the obvious. No other courts go higher than the SCOTUS.
3) You’re using a strawman about quoting one part = quoting every part. Nobody said this at all. I gave direct quotes and showed full context of how the quotes were applied.
4) The Minor definition of NBC was given to satisfy the meaning of the term as found in Art II Sec I. It applies to how presidential eligibility is defined. It speaks for itself. What better precedent would there be??
5) I’ve dissected Ankeny several times already. Review the thread. Even sometimes lurker admitted that it did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC nor did it declare him to be eligible for office. Posts #333 and 302 are good ones to re-read.
6) If you want a summary of WKA, Gray frames the question on the basis of WKA being a “native-born citizen” with parents who had permanent domicile and residence. He says the terms are NOT defined in the Constitution and the history must be reviewed to understand the terms “in light of” the common law (which is legally meaningless). Immediately he notes that NBC is NOT defined in the 14th amendment. If it was, he could have stopped there. From there he begins reviewing English common law. This wouldn’t be necessary if Justice Waite had accepted V. Minor’s 14th amendment argument. Part III reviews citizenship principles and statutes in the English colonies. Part IV adds some international law to the common law. Part V looks at the 14th amendment and how it was interpreted by the courts at which point it cites and affirms Minor on NBC and never again uses the term NBC in the decision. Part VI is a review of how Chinese persons were treated by courts in terms of citizenship. Part VII s the conclusion based on a new term: “citizenship by birth” as defined by the 14th amendment under the criteria of permanent domicil and residence. Both Gray’s NBC and 14th amendment citizenship by birth definitions exclude Obama from being a citizen. Providing Obama could legally prove he was born in Hawaii, he is ONLY a citizen by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 per the section on Hawaii.
How edge919 reads WKA:
1.There is a difference between a NBC and a 14th Amendment born citizen because some pretend lawyer on the Internet said that Vattel says so
2.Look, the WKA judges call Wong a Citizen, not a NBC.
3.Yippee!!! This proves I am right about No.1 above!!!
How a rational person reads WKA
1.Crap, this is a long case. Hmmmm,people born in England are NBJs no matter who their parents were. Hmmm. Hmmm. Same in America for the NBCs. Hmmm. Hmmm. 14th Amendment affirms this ancient rule. Birth here and allegiance is same as birth here and jurisdiction.Hmmm.
2. Look, the WKA judges call Wong a Citizen, not a NBC.
3. Wow, they are the same thing and I read the case right, and so did the Indiana judges and most every other SENSIBLE person.
See. The difference is, that the words you quibble about are only meaningful to people who start off with a preconceived idea and want to play sophistry games. Which is why the Indiana judges told those Vattle Birthers:
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
I want YOU to summarize EACH section of WKA to see how you will glide past all the stuff you ignore, which is 99.9% of the case.