It was 5-4,was it not...and no I don’t agree with all of the dissent or of the decision not because of the end product, but because of the way they came to it seemed unusual and a over worked interpretation. For example, I do not agree that jurisdiction for a citizen ends at the waters edge, and I don’t believe it ever has.
Natural born citizenship is often a matter of investigation to determine if there is a security issue. I think that was the intent and that was what they knew when they were silent on the issue when they wrote it.
Again, the 14th was written not vaguely but with room to argue it’s meanings because no case of citizenship is really the same as the next.
I thought it was so simple...in reality.
I am a retired building contractor and former electrical contractor. I see over done plans, designs, and over built stuff that did not need to be the way it ended up, as if it was designed by committee and not a expert.
The interpretations of judges read the same way to me in some cases, and this is one.
-- I do not agree that jurisdiction for a citizen ends at the waters edge --
Jurisdiction is something the government has, and people are subject to. Persons do not have jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a territorial concept. A NYC police officer has no jurisdiction over your actions while you are in Nashville, or Honolulu, or Moscow, or anywhere except NYC. Same goes for the feds. You leave the country, and "you're free" (except most other countries will facilitate extradition). Like the old westerns, make the Mexican border, and you got away with it.
That you leave the jurisdiction doesn't take your citizenship away.
-- Natural born citizenship is often a matter of investigation to determine if there is a security issue. --
That's in there. Also affection for the homeland. The facts are going to vary widely among all the humans, native-born included.
-- I see over done plans, designs, and over built stuff that did not need to be the way it ended up ... The interpretations of judges read the same way to me in some cases --
This case is pretty clean and easy. Wong Kim Ark is pretty dense, a difficult case, I would say.
Courts have created a house of cards with precedent, but not so much, if at all, with the distinction between a constitutional citizen and a naturalized citizen.