Hey stupid, that is NOT the findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Show us in the ORIGINAL findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and no other interpretations of it.Re: "Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?"
Here it is again:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same 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."
It says that everyone born in England was a "Natural born subject". Then it says that the same rule was practiced in the colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
The ruling also quotes this: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. "
The ruling also quotes this: "Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; ... British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; ... and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.... The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. "
And so far TEN appeals court rulings on the issue of presidential eligibility have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case did indeed rule that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision applied or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. The result of the US Supreme Court decision to turn down the appeal, is that the ruling of that appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, STAND.
But the fact is a no place in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does it mention "natural born citizen" and neither is it mentioned in the Fourteen Amendment!