[sometime lurker]

You misunderstand me. I cited the “jus soli” portion which is indeed in Rogers v. Bellei. It contradicts his quote, from post 387, that is not.

I should have been clearer in my response.

[sometime lurker]

Sorry, I forgot to add you on post #403.

[philman_36]

You misunderstand me. I cited the “jus soli” portion which is indeed in Rogers v. Bellei.
Then why did you say it wasn't?
@You appear to have taken this from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, and the writer acknowledges that he can't recall where he got it from. He thinks it might be Rogers V Bellei, but I can assure you it isn't, especially with this in the opinion:...
Your "assurance" was wrong as I clearly demonstrated.

I should have been clearer in my response.
I agree. Sometimes retrospect can be an ugly thing.