Replies

There is your problem in all its simplicity and glory. When the judge says: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." And you think it means: "It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct" Then there is a serious cognitive disconnect going on. And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case: "The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."

All hail Harlan1196! Keeper and dispenser of knowledge of all things legislative
and determiner of that which shall and shall not be believed!

@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.

There is your problem in all its simplicity and glory. When the judge says: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." And you think it means: "It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct" Then there is a serious cognitive disconnect going on. And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case: "The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."

Sounds to me like they did it correctly. As I said, it is only the court system that gets things bass-ackwards. The correct way to do it is to start with Original intent and work outward, not to start with what some court said more than 100 years later.

The court decision is merely the opinion of the founders filtered through a group of men who weren't even there.