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...
And it was answered...
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.
Be sure to note in that second snippet that the ...by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution... was omitted.
I ask of you as well...why would somebody claiming to be a natural born citizen cite a case based upon the 14th amendment making them a citizen by statute, not by nature?
You are guilty of the offense of Leo D. You are trying to interject what they should have said if they wanted to say.
Read the Court of Appeals case of Ankey. It actually addresses this.
I might remind you that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stated that the RULING of Wong Kim Ark was that Ark was a natural born citizen in their brief.
HOWEVER, all you really have to do is understand ONE CONCEPT.
It is pretty simple.
The Majority Opinion in Wong Kim Ark stated that the 14th amendment was declaratory. So did the Dissent. The Dissent didn’t agree with the ruling but set forth that this is what the majority ruled.
So, do you understand what it means to say that the 14th Amendment is declaratory?????
Look at how many paragraphs talk about natural born citizen as it related to Common Law.
If Common Law indicated that Ark is a natural born citizen and the 14th Amendment is Declaratory - what does that mean for Ark?
If YOU don’t understand what it means - read Justice Fuller’s dissent. He understand what it meant in terms of someone running for President. He disagreed with the notion and put it in his dissent.
You would be better served, as would this site, and your cause to actually understand what they meant and try to put forth a defense AGAINST Wong Kim Ark.
I will repeat what I have said repeatedly, those of you that support Vattel should understand that Wong REJECTED it.