[Non-Sequitur]

He clearly didn't read Chief Justice Fuller's minority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. It is heavily excerpted, along with discussion of the proper context of the Slaughterhouse Cases.

You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

[Carry_Okie]

You are aware, are you not, that dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent or become part of case law?

Oh please, you can't be serious asking me that. OK, here's your "duh" caveat: The purpose of dissenting opinions is to facilitate possible future reversal by pointing out the flaws in the majority opinion.

Happy now?

Fuller's dissenting opinion on Wong Kim Ark is a thing of beauty, a truly worthy read on some of the key principles of liberty under law. If one is looking for reasons to dispute current policy, isn't that good enough reason to consult it?