[BP2]

Pansy, I've read the Wong Kim Ark Opinion — as well as Justice Fuller's Dissenting Opinion — numerous times, especially in dealing with After-Birthers like yourself. When I point out exact references to you, and you stutter-step and say the Wong is not the correct reference for you to use, it's obvious that your understanding of it extends no further than your hand-fed bullet points.

Wong Kim Ark's Dissenting Opinion is obviously the Dissenting Opinion, but it's also VERY instructive of how Justice Roberts will proceed when this issue is accepted at the SCOTUS. The answer lies in looking at the Framers' intent.

To that end — as I've instructed you on over and over again — EVEN Justice Gray CLEARLY re-iterated the MINOR v. HAPPERSETT majority Opinion (as reaffirmed by your Judge Dreyer):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar”

THAT means that Justice Gray acknowledged, as Justice Roberts has on other Constitutional questions — and will affirm on Natural Born Citizen — that the answer lies in looking at “Original Intent”, NOT 20th Century Case Law from Liberal judges.

ORIGINAL INTENT certainly doesn't involve looking at a 1896 version of “Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws” as your APPEALS OF INDIANA opinion from Judge Dreyer does. How laughable!

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand ...

... well, actually I have a pretty good idea of why it is.

[parsifal]

Congratulations! I am proud of you!

Now lets take your point.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar”

WHAT THAT MEANS: Is that since it ain’t defined, the Wong court has to determine what the Framers meant. After reading Wong, you will now realize that is exactly what the Wong court did. That is why you see all those wierd cites to Coke, and other people in England. Coke by the way, was an English Judge, so the cite is to his decision.

So, your blurb means nothing, except TO BACK UP WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU. Wong is good law. It was based on the original intent of the Framers as determined by the Court.

Now, today, an attorney could argues that the Wong court got it wong, er wrong. He might win. I doubt it. Two reasons:

....1. The Wong Court didn’t make a mistake. They got it right.

....2. Wong is established law, and to overturn requires a real real real good reason, which don’t exist.

That’s the reality. You know its reality because I gave yu a link to the 3 month old Indiana case.

Now, I have a question for you: Why did i say your Blackstone statement was crazy and bizarre? If you know, feel free to say so.

parsy, who is so proud you read the dang case!