ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise. Look at a treatise. You usually have topical sections with multiple sub-divisions. There might be a part of Dicey, a court finds relevant and good, and another part either not-relevant, or not good, or a combination thereof. For example, some treatises argue BOTH sides (sometimes more than 2) of an issue. Clearly a court can not adopt ALL sides.
TWO: The part you cite appears to deal with jus sanguis citizenship of person born overseas. Wong wasn’t born overseas. Therefore, not relevant to Wong. You appear to be mixing citizenship issues between NBC and foreign borns, which some are probably NBCs and some probably ain’t.
parsy
|
> ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise. LOL, you’re working REALLY hard to support TWO flawed cases. Upon learning how Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark v. US still got it WRONG, you still plug away with your talking points. You’re living up to your reputation for being the Court Jester. > TWO: The part you cite appears to deal with jus sanguis citizenship of person No, idget. We're not talking about Wong. It was Obama Jr that was born outside of "the British dominions" ... unless you now AGREE with James Orengo when he said, "how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?" (Kenyan Parliament in March 2010). |