Yes, I must be on “crack” thinking that you would actually read anything that might help your understanding of legal basics, particularly when I have tried to give you the hint several times THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A FRIGGIN’ CLUE WHAT YOU ARE BLATHERING ABOUT!
And, I must be on crack to give you another link, that you ought to use to google up some more basics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
parsy, who says “Read up some, or ask, before blathering or you might become the next-—Orly Taitz!
ROFL, parsy has wikipedia JD!
Now that is seriously funny.
Ok, so now you're quoting WIKI as your argument for Obama
and his status as a British Subject. Tsk, tsk
After giving you multiple direct quotes from Wong Kim Art
v US, and proving that you have neither the legal scholarship nor
interpretive abilities of a first year law school drop-out,
you've shown your understanding on this is nil.
Everyone who has read this thread is now just a little dumber
because of your nonsensical blathering.
It's patently obvious that it is YOU who has not read
Wong Kim Art v US.
SO please demonstrate your knowledge on Wong Kim Art or any
other case law of your choosing, or return back to the
DailyKOS peanut gallery from whence you came.