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.
Why are you ignoring post #572 as I already directed you to read?? You have a bizarre honesty problem. You should work on that.
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.
Why are you ignoring that the Supreme Court in WKA also acknowledged that Minor v. Happersett is the case to quote?? Again ... honesty. Try it.