Replies

What you quoted is not the decision of SCOTUS. It is a citation from “Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”

Who is this “Dicey” and what authority does he have in the US courts? Why should he be believed any more than somebody like Donofrio, for instance? If the court had cited Leo Donofrio, what weight would you give that citation in their decision?

The WKA decision introduces Dicey’s work thusly:

“Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:”

Propositions. Just like Leo Donofrio has offered propositions.

See, the Wong Kim Ark decision quotes everybody as if they all had the same weight, lived at the same time, were addressing the same issues, etc. Just sorting out the quotes and putting them in order of date, authority, and direct relevance could take me weeks.

I wonder what Mr Dicey has to say about both Britain and the US denying citizenship to Blacks born on their soil, subject to their jurisdiction - since he claims that citizenship has always for the last 3 centuries been automatic for anybody born on the soil of a particular country.

You asked: What you quoted is not the decision of SCOTUS. It is a citation from “Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”

Well, I think Dicey Whoever has the same authority as Vattel would have had if the judges had quoted him and his ideas. It looks like Dicey was listing old timey English law cases which is where the “common law” came from, according to what I read in wiki.

Then you said:

To which I say AMEN!!! That stuff is just all over the place for page after page and it is like TORTURE trying to follow it. But that Indiana case that quoted the Wong Kim Ark stuff made it real easy to follow, which I guess that is their jobs as judges, to sort it all out. Which is usually where I go if I have to cut and paste stuff in debates.