But since their understanding is wrong then you are wrong.
That’s the piece you keep missing.
Legal right and wrong is decided in a courtroom. Your interpretation of Waite’s decision has never been validated in a courtroom. It has never been validated anywhere except on birther websites.
When you have some real victories in real courtrooms then perhaps you can say that you are right. You can’t do that right now.
But since it isn't, he isn't!
That’s the piece you keep missing.
No, that's the lie we keep ignoring.
Legal right and wrong is decided in a courtroom.
Yes, Dred Scott must remain a slave. That is the "right" which was decided in the court room, so therefore it must be true. You have a funny idea of what determines right and wrong. I suppose you would decree the rulings of the Volksgerichtshof must be correct because the court ruled.
Your interpretation of Waite’s decision has never been validated in a courtroom.
And therefore it doesn't have the validity of Roe v Wade or Dred Scott v Sanford. (according to Mr Anchor Baby's theory.)
When you have some real victories in real courtrooms then perhaps you can say that you are right. You can’t do that right now.
Yes, people such as Mr. Anchor Baby cannot comprehend someone being right unless someone else tells him to think so. It is a malady that independent thinkers do not suffer from.
Probably much of his daily life is saved the effort of thinking for himself. All he has to remember is to do what the authorities tell him.
Ankney is a "birther website"?? It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct because it points out the question of whether children born in the country to TWO citizen parents are natural-born citizens was answered in the affirmative. Such a question for the children of aliens, Ankeny posits, was NOT answered by Minor (which isn't true), so they cite Wong Kim Ark for dicta to create an answer that Ark didn't actually provide, which they admit by way of footnote. But then, Ankeny never declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, nor did they even declare Obama to be born in the United States, so they covered themselves legally only by saying they made a conclusion that had no legal precedent behind it.
Yeah, I'm going to just give up and follow you since you're such a knowledgeable scholar in all things. NOT!
@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
That is what you said and what you probably still believe despite @admitting I was right.