So you go on to ramble and totally disregard the quotes from the early court justices & actual congressional records that your traffic law clerk twisted to make his case, but when I expose them they are irrelevant? You then end with the erroneous WKA ruling as if it is actually law. That shows how ignorant you really are.
Parsi, you are truly laughable(yes I am laughing at you, not with you) and I suggest you stick to writing your sick little ditties making fun of people because educating yourself in American history and the truth of our founding is obviously far beyond your capabilities.
Wong Ark IS law. It may not be 100% on point for this case, but it IS law. It shows you where things are probably headed.
If a kid born to a Chinese couple is a citizen because he was born here, in the United States, then a kid born here, in the United States to one American parent, and one African parent, is a citizen. And if native born means natural born, which the language indicates, little Obama was a natural born citizen. Period.
You wanta obsess for hours on the finer points of alleigence, or what “under its jurisdiction” means, or all those other little distractions——go ahead. Have fun.
But the Supreme Court case is LAW. And that case has laid out the fundamentals.
parsy, who can think of better ways to spend his time than on trivialized legal dead ends.
let me try to say it a different way. You dissect cases. You don’t dissect treatises. The reason is, is that there is no reason to dissect treatises or lines of treatises. There is a reason to dissect cases or lines of cases.
That is because cases are the law, for the most part, and treatises are not law.
One would want to dissect cases, or lines of cases, because one would hope to be able to find some way to distinguish ones’s current case from the prior case or lines of cases. This is so that one could fit in under the application of law in those cases, or to escape the application of law in those cases, whichever is applicable.
There is no real need to do that with treatises, or with statements by people about the subject matter or issue IF case law has already incorporated that stuff into its prior decisions. It is just busy work.
Here, Wong Ark, or whatever, has already reviewed some of this stuff. SO, THAT IS WHERE YOU START. If you do, you can see where it is headed, as I have written above.
Now, a good lawyer, if he has a bad case, is going to scrounge through this stuff like crazy, on the off chance he can find some little bon mot (French for a good “mot” and I don’t know what a “mot” is.) that will provide some hope or way to approach turning his doggy doo-doo case into a winner.
For non legal people to spend their time scrounging thru the minutia of facts and statements, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT THEY ARE REVIEWING IS LAW, is not right. You will find a Vattel, who says XYZ, while the law is ABC. You will whoop it up under the assumption that you now have the law on your side. You won’t. You will have just wasted your time and gotten your hopes up over nothing. And, you will probably then go off half cocked and tell your friends what you found and get them stirred up too.
You will also end up calling people who disagree with you bad names under the mistaken conclusion that you see things clearly, when you way off base.
If you feel you must do something, start with the case law. Look at the holdings and establish some commonality if it is there. That will tell you what legal battles have to be won. In this particular case, Obama, it is probably over already. Like I said, if that little Chinese kid was a citizen because he was born here, Obama is probably a citizen.
Allegiance probably has nothing to do with it because his mother was an American. Period. The Court seems to be holding “native born” and “natural born” are synonymous.
parsy, who hopes you don’t beat yourself to death on this stuff