And I have excerpted from Wong and Indiana numerous times and shown you that you are flatly 100% wrong. This is why I get testy with you. The Wong oourt didn’t say no such thing. Language resembling that is in there and you keep pulling it out, but you ain’t reading far enough. There is a difference between factual background in a case and the reasoning and holding in a case.
This is where I am up against the brick wall. If you show someone something, and they just keep ignoring it, there ain’t nothing else you can do. Except suggest they not pursue law as a career.
parsy, who almost feels sorry for you...
I used your own citatations to show you were 100 percent wrong. You're sounding like a broken record hopeless demanding unearned validation ... something you have in common with Obama's birth claim.