[edge919]

Who cares what you said in April?

Right now, we're talking about the points you made in your original comment on this thread that said nothing about "legal precedent," which was the essential point of Leo's article.

You needed to warn me that you weren't too good with English and comprehension. I said that Wong Kim Ark (the Supreme Court decision, not the person) affirmed and followed the precedent in a previous Supreme Court decision (which was the Minor decision). That IS legal precedent.Can't wait to see your next silly comeback.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I said that Wong Kim Ark (the Supreme Court decision, not the person) affirmed and followed the precedent in a previous Supreme Court decision (which was the Minor decision).

And you are wrong. WKA does not affirm Minor. WKA establishes who is a 14th Amendment citizen.

Again, you've missed the point of Leo's article:

Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” –with regard to the dissent by Curtis –indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.

So, going on about how you've been saying the same thing for months that Leo is now "patting himself on the back" over makes you look silly because you aren't saying the same thing as Leo.