Isn't Wong Kim Ark being used as precedent in Arkeny?
Have you started drinking already???
No, but it appears to be that you have.
You’re using Wong Kim Ark as precedent, not good law, when you throw out Arkeny.
Wong Kim Ark has a decision that has nothing to do with NBC.
Arkeny relies on a case that has nothing to do with NBC and you tout it. Got it.
Sooo, you will not answer a simple question? Gee, that is not fair. I have answered a lot of questions for you, while you pretty much just copy and paste blurbs from a script.
Let’s see, you said, “Wong Kim Ark was a decision that has nothing to do with NBC.”
OK, so why then do they discuss NBC, back to the 1300s in England, and then trace it forward to 1898? Here is one blurb for example, and there are any others:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
If the WKA case was NOT about NBC, then why did the WKA case spend so much time on it. In your opinion.
Second Observation: You said, and I quote, “
“Arkeny relies on a case that has nothing to do with NBC and you tout it. Got it.”
Assuming that to be the case, then why did the Ankeny Court bring it up so much. Can you discuss that? Can you discuss why the Ankeny Court thought that WKA was relevant and controlling law? From your point of view.
Thirdly, you said the other night that WKA was wrongly decided. If you believe that WKA was NOT about NBC, then what part of it was wrongly decided??? In your opinion.