Ballantine responds to the following statement my Mario
Mario Apuzzo: And then Wong Kim Ark addressed those doubts and distinguished Wong from an Article II “natural born Citizen” and held that Wong nevertheless under the guidance of the colonial English common law was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth.
Simply a lie. The court didn’t conclude he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment, just a citizen after spending 21 pages saying he would be a citizen under the original Constitution and then 20 pages telling us the 14th restated the same common law rule. I see now that the majority has too many big words for you. Perhaps you should read Chief Justice Fuller great summary of the majority:
“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
“was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;”
“that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
“Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”…
The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England……And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”
As clear as can be that BOTH the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment are the same. Fuller goes on to say he disagrees that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were defined by the English common law rule. So, Mario thinks for the only time in history, the dissent didn’t understand what the marjority said. Mario also doesn’t know since he never clerked that the dissenting opinions are always read by the majority before publication so they can comment on it. We know, Fuller dumb/Mario smart. Again, everyone who matters has no trouble understanding this.
So Mario, tell us what Fuller said that was wrong. LOL.
[NBC: And Fuller went on to say]
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, 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, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Oh yes, they all understood…