Replies

All right then. I shall assume for the purposes of our continued discussion that you are well read WRT SCOTUS citizenship cases. I will catch up with you as soon as I next encounter you at FR.

Not really well read. Just the dozen or so cases that have been circulating since Obama's qualifications became an issue. I never immersed myself in the issue, I'm doing this more or less on the fly.

The only thing I wanted to close out was your contention about those three paragraphs in Bellei, which cities Wong Kim Ark for a proposition that shouldn't be contentious, unless you want to play pedant or sophist. The Wong Kim Ark cite reduces to something like "The naturalization rule that applies to Bellei isn't found in the 14th amendment."

So, you tell me how to adjust that (if necessary to complete your argument) and read the other two paragraphs for your proposition, "that Congress does have the inherent power to define who is naturally a citizen when such an individual is not explicitly covered by the 14th Amendment."

After that, we're done.

-- I will catch up with you as soon as I next encounter you at FR. --

I suggest just replying in this thread, to post 165 where I challenged your contention. That makes a tidy record for reference and our fellow readers.

I don't get many posts to me (shun ping lists), so I think I see all of them. I'll see yours, I'm pretty sure. Anytime you feel like it, no hurry. Next year for all I care. ;-)

One more thing. When I said “after that we’re done.” I meant we’ll have exhausted this argument, not that I’m of a mind to quit all discussion with you.