Do I have that right?
It is not according to "birther theory" - as you call it. It is according to United States law. If Wong Kim Ark v. United States had settled the question of natural born citizen, ALL of the liberal attornies on cable TV would have cited it as stare decisis - which is Supreme Court precedent.
NONE HAVE - NOR WILL, BECAUSE THE TERM HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED.
Stare decisis: Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.
Nothing in a Supreme Court opinion except the ACTUAL wording in the paragraph affirming or denying the petition [and the reason(s) therefore] matters.
In Ark, they strictly limited the decision to his citizenship based on the 14th Amendment - which Ark clearly was. As to the natural born citizenship question, basically, they punted.
LOL. Do you actually believe this nonsense? Think about it. If nothing in the opinion, other than the paragraph affirming or denyin the petition mattered, then why would the court bother to write the many pages that preceed it?
Why do constitutional lawyers continually cite the those paragraphs? Your assertion is complete nonsense.
Stop pretending you are a legal scholar. You make yourself look silly.
If Wong Kim Ark v. United States had settled the question of natural born citizen, ALL of the liberal attornies on cable TV would have cited it as stare decisis - which is Supreme Court precedent.
Actually, numerous lawyers of all political persuasions, not just liberals, arguing against the birther position have done just that. That includes judges sitting on the Indiana court of appeals.