I apologize for butting in here because Mr. Rogers is perfectly capable of explaining this himself, but I do want to make a point.
Rides3: I believe Mr. Rogers holds that SCOTUS in US v. WKA declared WKA not to be a statutory citizen but a natural born citizen. I don’t know where you get statutory citizen from but you should get rid of that idea.
It is a fact that Natural Born Citizens are eligible to run for the office of the President of the United States. You certainly cannot deny that.
That was established in the Constitution and in US vs WKA.
I think you are concerned that SCOTUS didn’t actually come out and say specifically that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen. They did’t specifically say, “Ark is NBC.”
It is not necessary to specifically say “Wonk Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”. Logic is sufficient. When the Supreme Court said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born–except for certain exceptions (foreign diplomat, etc); and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and none of the exceptions apply to him, then Wong Kim Ark fits into the category of Natural Born Citizen.
I can say Jimmy has blue eyes. I can further say that you need blue eyes to become president. I never said Jimmy is eligible to become president in actual words but logically Jimmy CAN be president because he has blue eye. LOGIC!
That is why all authorities accept US v WKA’s decision as precedent to dispel the two citizen parent crap that floats around clogging up the court system resulting in being tossed out. Sound logical to you?
I believe Mr. Rogers holds that SCOTUS in US v. WKA declared WKA not to be a statutory citizen but a natural born citizen.Not sure why anyone would hold that. SCOTUS ruled WKA "a citizen." He was never ruled a natural born citizen. I'll refer you again to the U.S. Government which as lately as 2011 stated very unequivocally that not all of those who are U.S. citizens at birth are considered to be natural born citizens for Constitutional purposes. If foreign allegiance at birth (via parentage and/or birthplace) didn't matter for Constitutional presidential eligibility purposes, there would be no reason for the Government to continue implying that it does in their officially published documents.