[Hugin]

How do you then interpret the SCOTUS ^codified^ “theory” of privacy (that has now become stare decisis?) in the Roe v Wade decision?

You make my point. In Roe the court took a theory and made it a legal precedent by using it as a basis for ruling. In Happerset v Minor simply acknowledged that there is such a theory, then specifically stated they didn't need to rule as to it's validity, because it was irrelevant to the facts.

As for you ugly characterization of anyone who points out the obvious flaws in your inept logic, it only reflects badly on you, not me.

[DiogenesLamp]

You make my point. In Roe the court took a theory and made it a legal precedent by using it as a basis for ruling. In Happerset v Minor simply acknowledged that there is such a theory, then specifically stated they didn't need to rule as to it's validity, because it was irrelevant to the facts.

So you are citing Minor v Happerset in support of your argument? Okay, What do you make of the fact that they said:

"The Constitution does not say who shall be a natural born citizen."

If being born on the soil was the sole requirement, you would think they might have noticed the 14th amendment. (passed 7 years earlier) Why, it's almost as if the court specifically noted that a 14th amendment citizen is not the same thing as a "natural citizen."

What do you make of this? Puzzling, isn't it?