Rond Abdel-Fattah

He would have argued, as he did in this brief, that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States— has a caveat, or he would have said an exception, which is only those who are born in the United States and who are subject to its jurisdiction are automatically birthright citizens of the United States.

He would have argued, as he did in this brief, that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States— has a caveat, or he would have said an exception, which is only those who are born in the United States and who are subject to its jurisdiction are automatically birthright citizens of the United States.

And so Holmes Conrad would have grasped on to that language and said, well, Wong Kim Ark, sure he was born in the United States, we can't refute that. But we do not think he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because his parents were loyal to the emperor of China and so was their son by sort of automatic transmission.

And so Holmes Conrad would have grasped on to that language and said, well, Wong Kim Ark, sure he was born in the United States, we can't refute that. But we do not think he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because his parents were loyal to the emperor of China and so was their son by sort of automatic transmission.

And so Holmes Conrad would have grasped on to that language and said, well, Wong Kim Ark, sure he was born in the United States, we can't refute that. But we do not think he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because his parents were loyal to the emperor of China and so was their son by sort of automatic transmission.

And so that means the son cannot automatically acquire citizenship based on birth.

And so that means the son cannot automatically acquire citizenship based on birth.

And so that means the son cannot automatically acquire citizenship based on birth.

Also said to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is itself unconstitutional. And his reason for that was he said the South was coerced into ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, and therefore it was never validly a part of the Constitution. And we can see in that argument, of course, that he's trying to litigate the Civil War. He's trying to say,

Also said to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is itself unconstitutional. And his reason for that was he said the South was coerced into ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, and therefore it was never validly a part of the Constitution. And we can see in that argument, of course, that he's trying to litigate the Civil War. He's trying to say,

Also said to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is itself unconstitutional. And his reason for that was he said the South was coerced into ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, and therefore it was never validly a part of the Constitution. And we can see in that argument, of course, that he's trying to litigate the Civil War. He's trying to say,

The Reconstruction Amendment should not be law. We should turn back the clock.

The Reconstruction Amendment should not be law. We should turn back the clock.

The Reconstruction Amendment should not be law. We should turn back the clock.

And in fact, the lawyers for Wong Kim Ark call him on that. And they say in their brief, This nation spilled so much blood to fight for the end of slavery and to establish the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments and change our nation and change our Constitution. And you should not accept the argument that these amendments are invalid.

And in fact, the lawyers for Wong Kim Ark call him on that. And they say in their brief, This nation spilled so much blood to fight for the end of slavery and to establish the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments and change our nation and change our Constitution. And you should not accept the argument that these amendments are invalid.

And in fact, the lawyers for Wong Kim Ark call him on that. And they say in their brief, This nation spilled so much blood to fight for the end of slavery and to establish the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments and change our nation and change our Constitution. And you should not accept the argument that these amendments are invalid.

So the length of time between the oral argument and the ruling was over a year. So the case was argued March 5th and March 8th, 1897, and the final Supreme Court decision wasn't announced until March 28th, 1898. And that was an extraordinary long period of time. It would be extraordinary today. It was even more so then.

So the length of time between the oral argument and the ruling was over a year. So the case was argued March 5th and March 8th, 1897, and the final Supreme Court decision wasn't announced until March 28th, 1898. And that was an extraordinary long period of time. It would be extraordinary today. It was even more so then.

So the length of time between the oral argument and the ruling was over a year. So the case was argued March 5th and March 8th, 1897, and the final Supreme Court decision wasn't announced until March 28th, 1898. And that was an extraordinary long period of time. It would be extraordinary today. It was even more so then.