And the two are the same. Read the Indiana case at page 16 where it says the citizenship language parts in 14th and Art. II have been read in tandem since Minor and Happersatt, which was affirmed by the Wong Court. That’s the way the Wong case reads. You can not read it without coming to that opinion. That’s why the Wong Court and the Indiana court went back to 1608. It was two-fer. And in Wong, its in like the first or second paragraph as I recall. I can go grab it again if necessary.
parsy, who is hurrying
Orbital dictum by itself is not always an end to its own, and in many cases, may not support the conclusions or holdings in a particular case.