Stick that where the sun don't shine. I'm sick to death of being told I can't read.
In reality I've always scored high on reading comprehension. I scored in the 99th percentile on the ITED, and did well enough on the PSAT to be awarded a National Merit Scholarship. I must say that my wife beat me on the math part of the GRE, and I'm an engineer, while she was an elementary teacher at the time, but I scored higher on the other part of the test, much of which was reading comprehension, and vocabulary. I scored high enough on the AFOQT to be awarded a full tuition and and books scholarship for my final two years of college. (Of course being an engineering student helped, since we, along with the math and science types, had our own category for scholarships). Which meant I got the money from my National Merit Scholarship back, to put in my pocket, (and help buy my commissioning uniform)
My daughter and son-in-law are lawyers, graduates of one of the more well thought of law schools, once you get beyond the so called "elites" of the Ivy League. They compliment me on my knowledge of the Constitution and the law.
parsy, who is swinging on the monkey bars..
And flinging the same stuff that the monkey's do.
If that the way I have come off, that you can’t read, I apologize. But sometimes legal opinions kind of ramble on, and in Wong, there is a lot of that. I went back and reviewed some of your posts. Maybe the problem is structural.
On a legal opinion, you can’t just ignore all the stuff in the middle of the opinion, and jump to the issue and conclusion. Ask your daughter and son-in-law. But, consider how you would reference the case in a future case. Suppose for a second that Wong was denied citizenship.
Now suppose “Son of Obama” comes up, a guy who wants to recognized as a citizen, but his daddy was a Kenyan. Son of Obama wants to run for president, his mom was an American, and he was born in Hawaii. California won’t accept his filing for the primaries, etc. because he is not an NBC.
He goes to Court. Now the gov’t isn’t just going to say, Well your honor, in Wong, the Court decided he wasn’t a citizen. And leave it at that. They have to go back into that stuff in the middle of the case, all the reasoning, all the case cites, and the determination of the Framer’s intent, and pull out what it was that formed the basis of why Wong wasn’t granted citizenship. Some of that may or may not be relevant to Son of Obama.
All that stuff in the middle isn’t just fluff. It is how the Wong court got to where it did. It’s relevant. And when “Son of Obama” opinion gets written, all the relevant stuff from Wong is going to be set forth in Son of Obama again. BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT...it’s how the court decided the case.
Look at that Indiana case again. Notice how the Indiana court grabbed the relevant parts of the Wong opinion and laid them out again. That’s how it works.
parsy, who was not trying to insult you