Replies

I was going by the paragraph above the footnote you mentioned:

"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six categories: (1) active military personnel; (2) former military personnel; (3) state representatives; (4) federal taxpayers; (5) relatives of President Obama; and (6) political candidates in the 2008 election. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the first five categories lacked standing, because they failed to show an injury-in-fact or showed only a generalized grievance insufficient to establish standing."

I thought the circuit court's citation on Wong Kim Ark was continued from the District Court. If not, then we can easily change this to say that the Circuit Court ignored that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically noted that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Their footnote doesn't mean much since there's no evidence that Obama was affected by the 14th amendment.

edge919 wrote:

I was going by the paragraph above the footnote you mentioned:
"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six [...]

Ah, no; the footnotes associate by number. The footnote marked with '2' adds a note to the inline text likewise marked with '2' in superscript ². In this case it is not, as you went by and quoted, the paragraph immediately above the footnote; it happens to be two paragraphs above. See page six of the Circuit Court's opinion

edge919 wrote:

I thought the circuit court's citation on Wong Kim Ark was continued from the District Court."

I can only fathom your thinking to the extent it appears in your writing. What you wrote was: "The district court ignored the fact that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, [...]"

Now it appears that you meant the Circuit Court, not the District Court, a simple mistake, yet you write that you thought the citation was, uh, "continued from the District Court." What does that mean? Was your thinking influenced by actually reading the opinions of the District and Circuit courts? If so, can you quote what in the District Court's writing you thought the Circuit Court "continued" by citing WKA?

Do you grasp, edge919, why one might be reluctant to accept your proclamations on law? Do you think you advance your cause by posting gibbering nonsense?

[2]Just an example, not a real footnote.