Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Winston
The Court in Wong clearly decided that Wong was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the ENTIRE RATIONALE AND REASONING OF THE CASE.

Sure they did, and that's why the words "NATURAL BORN" are so prominently listed in the opinion. The 14th amendment had nothing to do with it.

Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark, 1898:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ... 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,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Well Jeff, "You seem unable to read an entire case and to understand it."

.

There's not a judge or any major legal scholar anywhere who says anything different.

Yes, the fact that so many people repeat something means it MUST be true.

Of course your allegation is a lie, it's already been demonstrated to you that there are plenty of contradictory opinions on the issue, you simply keep repeating that there are none. LIE LIE LIE LIE.

The question the Court was asked was "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" Nobody cared whether he was specifically a natural born citizen eligible to be President. They asked whether he was a citizen.

And the response of the court was:

Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark, 1898:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ... 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,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

He was a 14th amendment citizen, not a "natural born" citizen. We know from Justice Waite that the two are not the same thing.

Only an idiot would keep saying stupid things like "You mix up 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen,' or 'The Court only found Wong to be a 'citizen,' they didn't find him to be a 'natural born citizen.'"

No Jeff, only an IDIOT would keep saying that "citizen" means the same thing as "natural born citizen." The fact that article II distinguishes between the two terms demonstrates that "citizen" does not equal "natural citizen."

Eat your anchor baby soup Jeff. You ordered it.

522 posted on 08/02/2013 4:44:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Me: The Court in Wong clearly decided that Wong was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the ENTIRE RATIONALE AND REASONING OF THE CASE.

You (sarcastically):Sure they did, and that's why the words "NATURAL BORN" are so prominently listed in the opinion.

Yes, it is.

It's why those words - "natural born" - are used no less than thirty-five times in that Opinion, along with a number of closely related words and phrases.

As opposed to ZERO times in The Venus.

It also has something to do with why the word "birth" is used seventy times in Wong.

529 posted on 08/02/2013 7:31:58 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson