Yeah. Like saying he was a citizen on the United States really meant he was a natural born citizen.
I tell you what - we'll continue with the pointless argument over the dissent when you make some reasonable attempt to answer the questions posited to you in post #281.
The questions in 281, to the extent they're reasonable questions, would have made sense to ask during the arguments in front of the WKA court--I don't know if anyone did. But now, after the decision's been rendered and we're arguing about what it means, they're pointless. You might as well ask me "how could the court decide Obamacare was a tax when...?" Valid question, but moot at this point.
Nevertheless, I reread them:
1] A year after final Constitutional Ratification, the Founders passed the Naturalization Act. Why, IF such a positive law authority existed, did they Founders NOT proclaim themselves to *natural born citizens*?
Because it starts, "Be it enacted...That any Alien" and they weren't aliens?
2] The next Naturalization Act, concerning aliens, was passed in 1795, repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, thus closing the window for anyone to claim being a *natural born citizen* UNDER that Act. So how did the Wong Court rationalize using an Act that had been repealed?
I don't see any evidence that the WKA court "used" the 1790 act in their decision. They mentioned it as part of their long review of the ways Congress had dealt with citizenship, but that's all.
3]The Ark court attempted to us the 14th Amendment in their rationalizations, but the words on the floor of the House specifically said foreigners and aliens were NOT included in the 14th Amendment, as shown here. So how can the Ark court rationalize him being a *natural born citizen* via the 14th Amendment when the authors OF the 14th Amendment said it did not include foreigners or aliens?
Already answered (#286).
Okay, your turn. Why did the dissent object,
"I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country...were eligible to the Presidency"if that's not what the dissenter thought the decision meant? (I can't see why you call an objection to the decision's impliications by someone on the same court "pointless," unless you're trying to wave it away.)