As ALL of the current SCOTUS have recently stated in debates, interviews & speeches:
Despite popular belief, case precedent is NOT law. It is merely the opinion of the court at the time the case is heard. Cases get overturned quite often when the right case comes before them that proves the early ruling was erroneous one.
Therefore, the obots theory of WKA being the law of the land is just diatribe to divert attention away from the immediate remedy & that is understanding our founding & our constitution by educating ourselves to our founding, founders & laws and that begins with the Magna Carta 1215, the Mayflower Compact, the 1st American Colonial Constitution of 1639, the early philosophers on law, etc, etc.
To truly understand we have to get inside the minds of those great people who wrote our laws based on the laws of nature & the laws of nations. Those laws have been the basis of every law written in this great land from the beginning of the 1st settlements. But they weren't limited to American law. From the beginning of time in English history, the laws of nature were the laws of the land and much is still in place there today.
Once we are educated properly, as many are now today after 2 years of indepth study, we are armed to take on WKA and renew permanently the definition of citizenship that our founding fathers & the states ratified in 1789, but was already put in place in all but a couple of the states by 1780.
parsi takes at face value the twisted, parsed & biased bits of history put on the internet by a washed up traffic law clerk rather than actually opening a book or going to a library, whether locally or online, to read & learn about our founding is the prime example of why this country's values & morals continue to decline. parsi is a disgrace to the very core of our country's founding & our founding fathers would wholly agree as being educated in the early works I spoke of above, were at the top of the list of all studies during the time of the founding and continues to be to this day in all classes that are not run by statist professors.
Hillsdale College has a wonderful program and anyone can call and get a list of all class study requirements to work on & read from home for their own personal education. It is free, but I recommend a small donation as Hillsdale takes not one dime of federal funding, not even through tuition fees. Hillsdale also is connected to the Kirby Center which also has a vast amount of resources to learn from in the comfort of your home. I welcome all to partake in these opportunities to truly learn our history so that we may regain it.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/
http://www.hillsdale.edu/kirbycenter/default.asp
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/
I’m all for education. Now as to case law, YES IT IS LAW. That is what is meant by “common law” -—it is “judge made” law. The other kind is “code law” like the Napoleanic Code. Common law works better because the people have more rights and abilities to protect themselves.
And, you can “take on” WKA all you want. It’s called a “hearing” and judge(s) will decide, just as they decided WKA. They may overturn parts of it. I doubt it. Until then, Supreme Court decisions are kinda important and smart people would do well to remember “that is the current state of the law.”
Y’all can jump up and down and run in circles, scream and shout, and read Vattel, and Rousseau, and D.H. Lawrence, whatever, they will NEVER EVER EVER be anything other than secondary or persuasive authority. They do not have the force of law. Supreme Court decisions do.
parsy, who applauds your energy, but wishes it were better directed
http://www.hillsdale.edu/kirbycenter/default.asp
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/
Here’s the link to the case:
GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Here’s some of the case:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Now the Birthers can romp and stomp all they want. It ain’t gonna change the facts. The Birthers say they are doing this “for the Constitution” then they need to put up or shut up. This is the current state of the law. Accept it, or become the usurpers.
You got the link to the whole case. Looks to me like that “traffic clerk” got it right. And, FWIW, I read this case about 6 months ago. So you got that part about me not doing my homework wrong, too.
parsy