For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts
~~~~~~
So, Donofio’s description here apparently fits you:
****
“Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In closing, and if you are open-minded with the capacity for new information, as you say, may I strongly urge you to carefully read and re-read if necessary (on the possibility you haven’t read the complete research thoroughly) the entire very detailed data and extensive research presented by Leo Donofrio, starting at THE very beginning (LINK ABOVE) and moving forward chronologically to today, remembering that Minor v Happersett had as a major premise her female gender vis a vis her citizenship status.
I have read a lot of Donofrio’s stuff lately and I am not impressed a bit. He is misrepresenting the law in a big way. There is a reason why 99.9999% of lawyers do not agree with him. It isn’t because he is sooo brilliant that he has figured out something no one else has. It’s because he can’t even get past a few sentences in Minor and understand:
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS.
Anyway, the zombie movie I was watching is over, so I am going to bed. Good night.