Like the other cases, Wong does not explicity say who what a Natural Born Citizen is. It says who a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment is, but never says Wong is one. Furthermore the case did not turn on Wong being an NBC, merely a citizen, so all that verbiage, other than the 14th amendment referances, is so much fluff and dicta.”
I already stated that Wong Kim Ark didn't conclude that the person in question was an NBC because it was only asked if they were a citizen. The dicta, however, is overhwleming. And Dicta is not just fluff.
However, all one need note is that it's such fluff and dicta that another court cited it directly as a basis for concluding that children born in this country are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. How does that compare with all the obscure references you guys are constantly throwing about and misrepresenting more often than not?
Everybody knew Obama had a noncitizen father when he ran. It was stipulated fact, and nobody in any position of authority accused him of being ineligible. Oh, I forgot, EVERYONE in the country is ignorant except for the diehards posting here.
Yeah, the Supreme Court doesn't even want to look at this nonsense, passes it up every chance it gets. Oh, I forgot, they're just cowards afraid of riots.
An actual court didn't even blink an eye before slapping some silly plaintiff across the face with the fluff and dicta of Wong Kim Ark, which is as clear as day to any legal professional being honest about it. Oh, I forgot, what do they know compared to the hacks you have pursuing this, stringing you along with one pipe dream after the next, ever some new obscure reference to misrepresent.
Honestly, you guys are the kind of client that any honest lawyer cuts loose. You won't accept reality and we're not interested in stealing your money for nothing.
It's not hard precedence either. But that dicta is pretty much fluff. It does not support the conclusion in the case, namely that Wong was a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment, due to being born in the United States.
It just so happens that I asked two lawyers, whom I trust, about that particular case and the fluff. Both agreed, it was fluff.
They are on opposite sides of the NBC question though. Which is awkward, since one is my daughter and the other her husband. Sort of like Mary M. and James C. :)