The questions in 281, to the extent they're reasonable questions, would have made sense to ask during the arguments in front of the WKA court--I don't know if anyone did. But now, after the decision's been rendered and we're arguing about what it means, they're pointless. You might as well ask me "how could the court decide Obamacare was a tax when...?" Valid question, but moot at this point.
Nevertheless, I reread them:
1] A year after final Constitutional Ratification, the Founders passed the Naturalization Act. Why, IF such a positive law authority existed, did they Founders NOT proclaim themselves to *natural born citizens*?
Because it starts, "Be it enacted...That any Alien" and they weren't aliens?
2] The next Naturalization Act, concerning aliens, was passed in 1795, repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, thus closing the window for anyone to claim being a *natural born citizen* UNDER that Act. So how did the Wong Court rationalize using an Act that had been repealed?
I don't see any evidence that the WKA court "used" the 1790 act in their decision. They mentioned it as part of their long review of the ways Congress had dealt with citizenship, but that's all.
3]The Ark court attempted to us the 14th Amendment in their rationalizations, but the words on the floor of the House specifically said foreigners and aliens were NOT included in the 14th Amendment, as shown here. So how can the Ark court rationalize him being a *natural born citizen* via the 14th Amendment when the authors OF the 14th Amendment said it did not include foreigners or aliens?
Already answered (#286).
Okay, your turn. Why did the dissent object,
"I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country...were eligible to the Presidency"if that's not what the dissenter thought the decision meant? (I can't see why you call an objection to the decision's impliications by someone on the same court "pointless," unless you're trying to wave it away.)
Oh, but they were. At the beginning, the only citizens were citizens of the States. Everyone was 'alien' and everyone who wanted to be part of the newly created United States had to follow the same procedure of taking an oath in front of a local magistrate.
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
-----
..who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
TWO YEARS. Since final ratification wasn't until 1789, the 'jurisdiction of the United States' had only existed for ONE year when this Act was passed, so it would be another year before anyone could 'qualify' under this act.
------
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
This was in conjunction with the Acts being passed BY the States - “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“
If, as you propose, any branch of government had the justifiable authority to say someone is *natural born*, they would have simply made a declaration stating everyone in the country at the time was a natural born citizen and save themselves and the States great deal of trouble.
-----
Already answered (#286).
No, it was not an answer . It was a total nonsequiter concerning a different type of law and a judge who has no relevance to this discussion.
Repeating your first flippant answer a second time does not constitute a response.
------
Okay, your turn. Why did the dissent object,
Because the court finding someone who was a natural born foreign citizen a citizen of the United States via convoluted reasoning concerning the 14th Amendment was ludicrous?
[See, I can do the 'flippant' answer thing, too!]
Again, the 'implications' of particular words in the deliberation or the dissent make no difference. It's the question before the court and the final determination of it that matters.
------
BTW - I see no purpose in any further discussion since you treat your questions as being of the up-most importance while you casually disregard any questions I pose.
There has been enough of that going around.