There are people that still think the world is flat. Just because someone holds a contrary opinion, doesn't mean that both opinions are equally valid.
"I don’t believe the opinion conclusively determines that Wong Kim Ark’s case, a case being considered WITHOUT the backdrop of him as a candidate for US president, was made by SCOTUS in any manner to comport with Article II of the Constitution in mind ..."
And to believe that, you have to ignore the plain wording of the decision itself. Do that if you like, but don't plan on trying to engage people in a debate. It's not a rational position.
You are basically deciding in advance what you want to believe and trying to force evidence to fit that view.
I’m not deciding anything .. I
merely disagree with your view,
but I’m not calling it irrational.
Are you an attorney ?
Despite what *some* may say, the Court did NOT determine that Wong Kim Ark is a ‘natural born citizen.’ That wasn’t the question before the court, and it appears that they avoided that question in their opinion.
“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, .....
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.”
US v Wong Kim Ark
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html