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
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.
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/