The Startling Truth about the Wong Opinion
June 16, 2014 Leave a comment
One Supreme Court case changed the nationality landscape in the United States far more than any other before it or since. And how did it do that? It didn’t.
Idiots did, -by totally misconstruing what its holding was. It is widely, and almost universally (and yet falsely) assumed to mean things that it clearly does not mean nor intended to mean as seen in its very own language.
You can hardly find a more broadly distorted and asininely re-interpreted holding of the court in American history. And that was the result not of what the court wrote but what the Attorney General at the time decided that it meant, and the lower courts that eventually ruled based not on the high court’s opinion but on his.
Imagine if you will that the Chairman of the Board of a huge company decided that from then on it would be company policy to no longer restrict employment to college graduates but would include top quality High School graduates as well. But then the CEO dictates that what the Chairman has decided is that anyone who has ever gone to school is eligible to be hired. That is what happened in America in regard to the citizenship policy of the nation thanks to that Attorney General.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898; Supreme Court final, concluding opinion:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,
whether a child born in the United States,of parents of Chinese descent,who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.”
~ ~ ~
A very strange situation has gone on in my mind regarding that Supreme Court opinion. I first read it a few years ago as a neophyte in the citizenship wars and could hardly believe what I was reading. It was so incredibly specific to just the facts of Wong’s circumstance that I had to doubt by own rationality to try to come to terms with the fact that no one, literally no one at all that I had read had written a word as to what was so starkly obvious, namely; that it was not written in a general manner but in a specific one.
Yet until this day, no writing I had come across acknowledged that fact. I subconsciously wondered if there was something “wrong” with my “legal” comprehension of what was plainly written.
Well, it appears that what I was reading was the same thing that everyone else was reading and seemingly ignoring, -until Robert finally stated the ridiculously obvious truth, which the “deafening silence” about it had made to seem like it didn’t even exist. Now I happily give you the unvarnished unmistakeable truth about the Wong opinion:
Robert wrote: WKA lists several qualifications which the court felt justified declaring WKA a “citizen of the United States”:
1. child born in the United States,
2. of parent of Chinese descent,
3. who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China,
4. but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,
5. and are there carrying on business,
6. and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,
becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
[Note that the court is recognizing all of the criteria as being important to their decision.]
So, how many of these criteria are met by Mr. Obama?
1. Well, we don’t know for sure where Mr. Obama was born. He’s claimed birth in Kenya and in Hawaii. However, no documentation has ever been presented that proves either. Forgeries don’t count.
2. Mr. Obama has never claimed and doesn’t appear to be of Chinese descent.
3. His parents were not subjects of the Chinese Emperor, either.
4. His father was not permanently domiciled here.
5. His parents were not carrying on a business here.
6. But his parents were not employed by the Emperor of China in any capacity. [One in six match]
On even a superficial reading it appears that the court clearly set to narrowly define its decision to the resident Chinese population who were engaged in commerce by the owning of a business. If not, they certainly had the vocabulary skills to include any foreign nationality.
So, WKA does not apply to Mr. Obama at all. ~ ~ ~
There is a much easier and more reliable way to do this—look at text books which were in use before 2008. In fact, this has already been done. While Obots have found dozens of texts that make it clear that anyone born under US jurisdiction (another term who’s meaning was never in doubt until the birthers came on the scene) is a natural born citizen, the birthers have discovered exactly zero text books in which someone (at any level) might have learned that natural born citizenship requires citizen parents.
The citizenship of the former is by descent; the latter is by law.
“How could any man teach law for thirty or forty years and not know the Constitution quite well, especially back then when education had a rather more scholarly tone?” Sloppi replied:
How about a woman who was appointed by Ronald Reagan and served for 25 years on the Supreme Court? Do you think that such a person would know the Constitution quite well? And if such a person voted with the majority on Bush v. Gore, then she couldn’t possibly be controlled by the Democratic party, right?
I guess the clear and unambiguous statement by Sandra Day O’Connor that President Obama is natural born due to his birth in Hawai’i doesn’t count because she doesn’t give the answer you want.
Since there are already plenty of sources with credible and relevant expertise that unequivocally say that President Obama is eligible, it is clear that only those who refuse to accept the obvious answer are still asking questions. ~ ~ ~
Dear Sloppy; I have a challenge for you. Can you show any establishment lawyer – judge who is NOT brainwashed by the establishment viewpoint that has reigned in the stupid U.S. government since 1898? Where are they?
You ask us to look at one or two or three examples of respectable legal careerists who agree with you. Why stop there? The question is; -which ones don’t agree with you? Any at all? Or are they all dupes just like you, as pathetic consensus-opinion, group-think sycophants?
I’ve already written multiple times about how throughout history everyone was wrong about some universal belief. Including Einstein on the nature and size of the Universe. He was only off by about a trillion percent or so. So why do you pontificate about establishment opinion as if it is being dispense from Mt. Sinai?
That’s a rhetorical question since I already know the answer. People like you value security and maximum government assistance over individual Liberty and constitutional rights. To achieve that maximum level of security from government requires that government be given the maximum amount of power that is possible. And that power must be taken, a bit at a time, from The People and The States until Leviathan is all powerful and everyone is dependent or subservient to it.
You are just such a statist at heart or else you would not be full-time involved in defending the greatest violator of the Constitution is American history. Not to mention his numerous criminal and impeachable acts.