There you go again starting off with insults. I'm not duty bound to keep track of your each & every comment either, specially those made pages away. Go worship your own words if you care to. Just don't imply I must do the same.
At the link just now provided -- if that is "William Jacobson" ---then there is far more than that single individual there among the many more additional scholars whom you would need refute.
At that link there is coverage of a significant amount of scholarship regarding this issue, including law professors who's positions do not agree with your own -- while you rely upon dicta from old court decisions in futile effort to overthrow the laws as written by way of imposing your own preferred definitions upon the laws, doing so chiefly by bombastic assertion.
Oh but you have. You've been repeating the same ill-founded, misapplied crap, regardless of what anyone says to you. And then, when anyone is not at first intimidated, you come and try harder, rudely insulting along the way. That signals -- you've got NOTHING.
And here as before, to insults you add false accusation. I'm "too discourteous to even read the law"?
You ruin your own credibility saying that. I've not only read the laws, but on a previous thread which I did just bring to your memory (my doing so having obviously pushed your buttons) cited law in addition to portions of a particular court case --- directly to you.
On a previous thread I cited the 8 USC 1401, including making note of when portions of that code changed, etc, responding also to your harping upon yet another change (the one involving changing the number of the sub-paragraphs under 1401 to using letters) and have obviously also read a portion you had just now previously cited, explaining in part, the reasoning & motivations for Congress to have written that portion (which you labeled 320) in refutation of attempt to make your own specious interpretations apply, proving your here latest accusation (that I don't read the laws) be total bullshit.
Going by how you reason now -- I'm not all that impressed. You seem confused. Mistaken, at least along with being a legend in your own mind.
For example of "mistaken"; the effort to try to apply language from Wong Kim Ark which in that "dicta" was a judge's own non-binding commentary, to overthrow what is written as law nearly a half century later ----and can be taken at face value to show that persons such as Bellei, and now Cruz also; were citizens at birth, deriving that from their citizen parent rather than from the law, yet that acquiring citizenship from U.S. citizen parent be under the laws nonetheless, acknowledged by the statutory language of those the laws.
There is a distinction there which you keep missing.
It is not the laws which made Bellei a citizen at birth, but instead the parental conditions (parental citizenship) of that birth that resulted in the making of a citizen. The mere fact that in a prior court case that exception to a Court's thinking was not contemplated (the exception which applied to Bellei, and does so also for Cruz) in no wise shuts the door upon that exception, precluding a later court to find Congressional re-adjustment and refinement of laws (including that very exception!) that stipulated under what birth conditions a person is born a citizen precisely as the code does read.
Hearsay evidence of the worst sort, that (last above quoted from you) is.
You make lots of assertions. When the contexts which you rely upon to base those assertions are examined --so far they have failed, right about where it needs to be the way you say things are --- while you continue to studiously ignore all that is right under your nose which would refute your assertions.
More insult, any justification for based on nothing other than your own personal opinions and self-interests, including obviously your own pride.
No, you come back when you are willing to include consideration towards a case that arose nearly half a century later than Wong Kim Ark, that among basis for the majority's reasoning there, in Rogers v Bellei found that Bellei, although at birth a citizen as the statutes in force at time of his birth stated, was not a 14th Amendment citizen, but in fact was born a citizen under a condition of exception from the wording found within the 14th Amendment, and thus outside of the dicta within Wong Kim Ark also.
That case (Rogers v Bellei) being as it is more directly comparable as for conditions (of birth) renders the sort of appeal from a portion of a paragraph from Wong Kim Ark to be superfluous, even overruled by default for reason the Court did there in that later Rogers case expressly find that the law as written (at time of Bellei's birth, and afterwards also for what would have applied to Bellei retroactively) was constitutional.
The court did rule those things as part of their decision, that portion being not mere dicta. After some review of that case among more than a few others, the Court purposefully, deliberately set the Wong Kim Ark case almost entirely aside, while also having found that the laws as those were when Bellei was born were in fact constitutional and binding, leaving it be Congress who were writing the laws, rather than in comparison; your own efforts to have the Court legislate from the bench through your own shaded & prejudiced selective quoting and interpretations of a now more than a century's old Supreme Court case --- which would not apply even if you got things correct because THE LAWS HAD CHANGED after that century+ old decision!
You can't seem to wrap your mind around the ramifications of that.
That's a naturalization law. Every time you use it you simply scream out at the top of your lungs...the person needing this law is a naturalized citizen.
Please keep using that naturalization law as the basis of their/his citizenship.
Naturalized!!! See how easy that is?
No, it was the laws that opened the door to acceptance of Bellei’s circumstances, which would not have been eligible otherwise (his not being physically born here).
And this was not tantamount to NBC because Bellei’s window of eligibility closed due to other laws, which the USSC said was quite OK.
Ted is theoretically in the same peril.
And most respectfully: can you truly entertain the idea that the Founders wanted a president whose citizenship could be in danger from ANY angle? When they asked for NBC?
This could even be an issue for Ted! If the bureaucratic bungle attributed to him in (IIRC) 1974 is true. He didn’t declare as an eligible citizen. I don’t know the statute knock-ons of this. But it would be a problem if it means he thereby fails to meet some other citizenship criteria on the books. He would then, literally, have a Bellei full of problems.