There's nothing out of context. You've seen the Gray citations of Waite several times now and you've been proven wrong over and over on your belief.
There was a controversy over where Chester Arthur was born. The election was only 5 years after Minor Happersett, so YOU please explain why YOUR citizenship case of the ages was ignored. People were certainly aware his father was from Ireland. If you need help, look up A.P. Hinman.
I'm not going on a goose chase because you can't support your argument. If you think you have something, you need to cite it. Otherwise, whatever point you think you have fails. It will most likely fail anyway, but one does NOT have other people do their work for them.
Also please explain why Judge Waite, who YOU claim just decided that NBC required two citizen parents, swore in 5-ish years later Chester Arthur who had but one citizen parent.
Both of his parents were citizens. The father naturalized when Arthur was still in his minority. There's no evidence that Waite would have known about the timing of when Arthur's father was naturalized. If you have evidence to show that he knew and ignored it, let's see this evidence.
Please also provide the analysis of Wong Kim Ark that I previously asked for, by section. Explaining for each section what the section was about, with representative language, and how that language tied in to the rest of the decision.
Nobody owes you an "analysis." The case and context has been explained to you several times, but particuarly in this post: #572.
Haven’t you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly being provided a ton of information and cites by people, which you ignore.
Haven't you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly ignoring that I've debunked everything that has been provided?? ... and that I've provided much more information and citations that support what I've said??? I've explained YOUR contradictions and YOUR inconsistencies and you simply ignore that. And ONE MORE TIME ... I'm not pushing a "theory" ... the Courts are very clear: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. THESE are the natural born citizens.
Just what I thought. I give you a coupe of days, and still no analysis of Wong Kim Ark by YOU. Here is how your refusal to outline and analyze Wong Kim Ark hurts you, from above:
ME: Out of context on Gray quoting Waite. YOU provide the context of the statement, please, if you are able.
EDGE919:There’s nothing out of context. You’ve seen the Gray citations of Waite several times now and you’ve been proven wrong over and over on your belief.
Yes it is out of context. I could very easily cut and paste from one of my Internet Articles and prove it. But you need to do your own homework on YOUR theory. If Judge Gray truly quotes Waite, and for the purposes you say, then you have helped back up your Theory a little.
I will give you a hint. It is in Section V of Wong Kim Ark.
Plus, you will notice how Leo Donofrio’s argument that Minor v. Happersett is the case to quote, and the Liberty Legal Foundation case also quotes Minor v. Happersett.
IF the Wong Kim Ark case affirmed those words from Minor v. Happersett, why then aren’t they quoting the later case of Wong Kim Ark in their Internet Articles and law suits??? Sooo, apparently even your own Vattle Birther big wigs realize that Wong Kim Ark does not read Minor the same way you are, as being affirmed.
This is why YOU need to analyze Wong Kim Ark sooo you can understand this stuff for yourself. If you try it and get stuck, then I will help you. But first you have to put forth some effort on YOUR Theory.