That's been covered in another post. The core reasoning of a case is binding precedent just as much as the final statement is. This is basic law, which is routinely ignored by DiogenesLamp whenever it suits him. Yeah, it's basic law that took 14 English Judges nearly six years to figure out, and over 12 months for the "Wong" court to decipher, and that only after it had made the rounds through the other courts who couldn't seem to decipher it either.
Apparently that "basic" stuff is really complicated.
Ah, but in Minor v. Happersett, he picks out one or two sentences that don't even have to do with the case at hand, and argue that they "prove" his claim.
Yeah, like that Sentence in which Justice Waite explicitly states that the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen" and the meaning has to be obtained elsewhere.
Yeah, it's a crazy thought that five years after the 14th amendment, a judge might not notice it or something. What was the case about? THE 14TH AMENDMENT!
This is why it is POINTLESS to reason with you. You simply IGNORE anything you don't like.
So the conclusion is supposedly somehow invalid because the Supreme Court doesn't talk about the War of 1812?
I'm not even saying the Wong decision is wrong, it depends on the scope of interpretation. If it is construed to be an explicit interpretation of the 14th amendment it is arguably correct. If it is construed as being the equivalent of the 1787 "natural citizen" it is absolutely wrong.
Once again, the Waite court asserted that the 14th amendment doesn't define "natural born citizen." As for the war of 1812, you're d@mn right it should have been included in the court's research and commentary. It explicitly dealt with the issue of citizenship by people who KNEW THE TRUTH. People such as Bushrod Washington and Chief Justice John Marshall who EXPLICITLY noted that the best definition of citizenship was Vattel's definition. 
Once again, I point out that My pair of Supreme Court Justices beat your English trained Lawyer. (So does the entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania.)
Note what we don't have here: Any analysis of the Court's reasoning in Wong.
No, we have evidence of extremely BAD reasoning on the part of the court which decided Wong. An impeachment of their competence is what we have.
The argument is basically, "They got it wrong with Plessy, so they must've gotten it wrong with Wong as well."
That is one argument. Another way of looking at it is that they decided there were distinctly different classes of citizens in Plessy, and they followed the exact same philosophy in Wong.
Wong was a "citizen" but not a "CITIZEN." Get it?
The same court that drew distinctions between citizens in Plessy, can be understood to have drawn distinctions in Wong by not including the words "natural born."
Wong was one of those "separate but equal" citizens, like Homer Plessy, according to the Wong court.
Oh. And this is from the exact same guy who has regularly tried to make his case by quoting one of the Justices in the most infamous decision in American history - the infamous Dred Scott case that ruled that Dred Scott was was "property" and not a "person," and that black people were not and could never become US citizens.
I'm the same guy who points out the UGLY truth whether you like it or not. The Tanney decision stood until overturned by the 14th amendment, and it is sh*theads like you who refuse to acknowledge truths you don't like. Beyond pointing out the case, I have no recollection of ever citing Tanney by quote. I'm not absolutely certain, but i'm pretty sure this is another Jeff Lie for which you need your ass beaten.
Remember how I asked you to explain the 14th amendment and you come back with that horsesh*t about Needing to pass another law which says the same thing as the existing law?
No @$$hole, the Civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment were created for the EXPLICIT purpose of overturning the Dred Scott decision.
Furthermore, it's your impugning of my motives that make me want to beat the ever loving dog sh*t out of your lying deceitful @ss.
That's been covered in another post. The core reasoning of a case is binding precedent just as much as the final statement is. This is basic law, which is routinely ignored by DiogenesLamp whenever it suits him.Yeah, it's basic law that took 14 English Judges nearly six years to figure out, and over 12 months for the "Wong" court to decipher, and that only after it had made the rounds through the other courts who couldn't seem to decipher it either.
No. That the core reasoning of a case serves as precedent as well as the final proclamation is basic law.
Very basic, and only ignored by birthers. Apparently that "basic" stuff is really complicated.
As for the war of 1812, you're d@mn right it should have been included in the court's research and commentary. It explicitly dealt with the issue of citizenship by people who KNEW THE TRUTH.
Courts cite legal precedent, not wars.
People such as Bushrod Washington and Chief Justice John Marshall who EXPLICITLY noted that the best definition of citizenship was Vattel's definition.
They used Vattel in The Venus for his view on how to treat one's own citizens who were living in another country, which is a matter of international law. That was the purpose that Vattel was often cited for. Not the domestic definition of citizenship.
Once again, I point out that My pair of Supreme Court Justices beat your English trained Lawyer. (So does the entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania.)
If your pair of Supreme Court Justices had had anything to say about natural born citizenship, you might have a point. They didn't.
And of course you either twist the words of other Supreme Court Justices, like those in Wong, or completely ignore them, like Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said that it was CLEAR that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency, because he was born in Hawaii.
No, we have evidence of extremely BAD reasoning on the part of the court which decided Wong. An impeachment of their competence is what we have.
Ah, yes. Do let me know when they make you Chief Justice. I'll buy you a bottle of cheap whiskey so you can celebrate, and let you drink yourself into the ditch.
That is one argument. Another way of looking at it is that they decided there were distinctly different classes of citizens in Plessy, and they followed the exact same philosophy in Wong.
Either way, the comment doesn't address the quality of the Court's reasoning in Wong.
Wong was a "citizen" but not a "CITIZEN." Get it?
Ah, yes. I get it.
Yes, yes. Quite so.
The same court that drew distinctions between citizens in Plessy, can be understood to have drawn distinctions in Wong by not including the words "natural born."
Except, of course, for the 34 times they did include the words "natural born."
Wong was one of those "separate but equal" citizens, like Homer Plessy, according to the Wong court.
Ah, yes. Well, it's a novel theory.
Except that the dissent correctly noted that the Opinion meant that Wong and every other US-born Chinerman was eligible to be elected President.
Well, well. What to do with that. So they decided Wong was a second-class citizen, but that wouldn't stop him from being elected President.
Yes, you do have a talent for novel legal theories.
Oh. And this is from the exact same guy who has regularly tried to make his case by quoting one of the Justices in the most infamous decision in American history - the infamous Dred Scott case that ruled that Dred Scott was was "property" and not a "person," and that black people were not and could never become US citizens.
I'm the same guy who points out the UGLY truth whether you like it or not. The Tanney decision stood until...
Can't have it both ways, Roscoe. Either I'm a bad man merely for citing a Supreme Court most of whom (not all) also adjudicated Plessy, as you say - which makes you a FAR WORSE, EVIL, DESPICABLE SCUMBAG of a man for directly trying to use the Dred Scott decision...
Or nothing. Or you way overreached again by being the pot that called the dandelion black, and you would do well to shut up while you're not as far behind as you might be.
No @$$hole, the Civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment were created for the EXPLICIT purpose of overturning the Dred Scott decision.
Of course they were. But the sponsors also stated, quite clearly, that they considered they were simply affirming the law as it already was.
Obviously, they believed that the Supreme Court far overreached in the Dred Scott decision and that the Court itself was ignoring what US law really was.
Oh, did I mention... cough, cough... that you have previously appealed to that infamous decision?
Furthermore, it's your impugning of my motives that make me want to beat the ever loving dog sh*t out of your lying deceitful @ss.
Look, your promotion of clear, demonstrated fallacies and making of false claims has been demonstrated many, many times in the past.
There are literally dozens of these. And most of them are quite CLEAR.
What am I to conclude except that you're doing it on purpose? I simply can't believe you're unbalanced enough to actually believe all the fallacies you post.