You are an idiot. You didn’t REALLY read what I said, did you?
EPIC FAIL! Go to the back of the class and think about why you are there.
Cheers
Epic fail is trying to get this thread to load. Maybe all the birther kiddies should restrict their pics and emoticons. This isn’t DU, you know.
Anyway, you said:
“but what I guess I am trying to say is that when After-Birthers cite a terribly “Progressive” and obviously logically flawed decision like Kim Wong Ark to use as some sort of “proof” against us Constitutional Disciples, well...it is like me quoting the Dred Scott decision to them to justify slavery before the signing of the emancipation proclamation; it doesn’t change what I, and others, instinctively know to be proper and just.”
You seemed to love Vattel in Dred Scott. In Wong, the Court discussed the law of nations. I will let you find the section. A re-read of Wong would be good for you. (Hint: The Wong Court doesn’t “Over-rule” Vattel)
So, again, you “instinctively know “ which cases are best. It doesn’t work that way. Usually, the later cases subsume earlier cases on relevant points.
Wong is used because Wong decides the relevant issues. Like it or not, its the law. I gave you that Indiana case. It is a 2009 case. It is not binding on any court, but as I said, it shows you where the current state of the law is.
parsy