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.
Still no analysis of Wong, section by section, by you.
Then you asked: “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.”
I know why the Wong Kim Ark judges used that quote. Do you??? I have already written about that elsewhere. I coud simply copy and paste it. But I am tired of spoon feeding you. This is YOUR theory and YOU have the responsibility to do YOUR homework. What are you, a liberal who is used to having everything handed to you on a silver platter???
I want to see YOU doing some work for a change, not everybody who disagrees with you working their tails off to show YOU where YOU are wrong. Instead, YOU start showing us where you are right. Start by analyzing Wonk Kim Ark, section by section. Don’t write a book, unless you want to. Just quotes from each section and a recap of how the court summarized those findings in your own words.
Next, on Minor, you are dodging another inconsistency in YOUR theory. You say Wong Kim Ark used and affirmed the so-called NBC language. I asked why, if that is true, did not Donofrio and the Liberty Legal Foundation use Wong Kim Ark to support their theories and LLF to support their case, instead of Minor, by itself. WKA is 23 years later, and that would be appropriate, if YOUR theory was true.
I bet you have been used to popping into a forum, spouting off YOUR conclusions, and then watching everybody else work their tails off to prove YOU wrong. Which we all do. Which you continue to ignore. Maybe that dynamic needs to change and YOU need to be a big boy and start proving YOUR theory, and maybe YOU need to start explaining the inconsistencies YOUR theory encounters in YOUR words. Maybe that way, YOU will have to start THINKING about what you are saying. That sounds fair to me.