Replies

Were it irrelevant to his point, he would not have cited it.

Or, an even more plausible view given the issue in the case, is that he included a bit more beyond Vattel's paragraph on domicile to show that his cited authority delves into matters of international law from multiple angles and to give the reader the context of the relevant portion on domicile. (Which makes him, unlike you, a "read in full context sort of guy." I can admire that.)

Or do you only consider him a fool when it suits you?

Nice strawman argument there. I never called him that. There are reasons to support his treatment of Vattel, while still recognizing only the portion on domicile is relevant to the case as hand and the other portions are obiter dicta (disregarding for present purposes a dissent as a whole is that).

Justice Marshall started his quote of Vattel where he did because he regarded it as SALIENT to the point.

Or, he wished to provide a bit of context.

But you may go beyond mere assertion to support your argument. So I ask: what was his "point" (the person's citizenship wasn't in dispute, nor was there any discussion of his parents) and how did the paragraph speaking of "indigenes" support his point?

Given your tendency to cite IRRELEVANT crap . .

So far, I've only cited to The Venus, Minor and Wong Kim Ark. I'll grant you as to the question of whether a person such as President Obama is a natural born citizen, the first two cases are IRRELEVANT. So here, you are correct.

. . . I can only surmise you project this same weakness onto other people,

Here I'm not projecting. I'm just observing and documenting what I see.

but I assure you, Justice Marshall is more competent than are you.

Let me see if I grasp your methodology here. Are you making an "appeal to authority?" Because what I observe is you rest on that argumentative crutch whenever anyone else lists the considerable number of judges and legal commentators supporting the view you oppose. So when citation to authority is (or is not) an improper "appeal to authority" is a bit hard to figure out with you. Consistency is not your strong suit.

Ah, we ARE full of "nuance". Or perhaps something even more brown and sticky.

Nice strawman argument there. I never called him that.

Tantamount. First you alleged that a Judge's opinion outside of a holding is irrelevant, then you suggest that an explicit quote by a judge didn't deal with the issue in question anyway. Well which is it, Irrelevant because it's not a holding, or irrelevant because it doesn't touch on his point? Either way, we gather that it is "irrelevant" as far as you are concerned.

So I ask: what was his "point" (the person's citizenship wasn't in dispute, nor was there any discussion of his parents) and how did the paragraph speaking of "indigenes" support his point?

It is the foundation of his point. How does a foundation not support that which is built upon it? Understanding the base of citizenship is necessary before the logic of a citizen's obligations and privileges can be made clear.

Chain of logic; do you speak it?

So far, I've only cited to The Venus, Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

You have proffered the conclusion that a Judge's opinion is inconsequential unless it is part of a holding; a notion that suggests some sort of magical "Ex Cathedra" transformation of a Judge's pronouncements, in contradiction to the contrary suggestion that Judges generally know what they are talking about, even when not issuing a holding.

That it is not part of a holding is irrelevant. It is still the Judge's opinion of what is the law.

Here I'm not projecting. I'm just observing and documenting what I see.

And like a projectionist has control of the projection, you are seeing what you wish to see.

Or logic yours. The fallacy is one of FALSE AUTHORITY. Justice Marshall is not a false authority. As a front seat witness to the events, he is, in fact, an ACTUAL authority.

When the topic is what was the meaning and intent of the Delegates in creating Article II, Justice Marshall was in a position to know. Justice Gray was not.

"In 1788, Marshall was selected as a delegate to the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying or rejecting the United States Constitution, which had been proposed by the Philadelphia Convention a year earlier. Together with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, Marshall led the fight for ratification. "

Now that I have schooled you on the difference between false authority and ACTUAL authority, perhaps you will remember it in the future, though I suspect not.