Here's a clue.
When you mention something in passing - one or two sentences - and it's not relevant to the outcome of the case, that's obiter dicta.
Obiter dicta is "a thing said in passing."
When you discuss it for 40 pages, and that discussion is core to the resolution of the case, that's not obiter dicta. That's NOT "a thing said in passing."
That's CORE REASONING, and core reasoning is just as much a precedent as the final pronouncement.
That's basic law.
At this point, I am wondering about you.
You sound like you believe what you're saying. Given what you're saying, that is very odd.
If you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, then it seems to me that something is definitely wrong with you. Whether it is physiological, or psychological, something is wrong there.
I am wondering: How old are you? I am also wondering whether you have had any traumatic head injuries in the past.
When you're quoting what other people said, it isn't YOU saying it. It's citing for reference. It is noting (in passing) what OTHER people said.
But Jeff, you are overlooking one central and very obvious problem with your theory. If it's SO obvious, why does it require 40 pages of Proof, a Year of Deliberation, and even a legal challenge rising up from lesser courts with the Freakin United States Government being the Plaintiff, and it still doesn't even manage a unanimous ruling?
If you were ever correct at any point in history, the only necessary response would have been "born on the soil." The Very FACT that this isn't adequate, is the best proof that it is wrong.
If you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, then it seems to me that something is definitely wrong with you. Whether it is physiological, or psychological, something is wrong there.
Well see, here's where we differ. I'm pretty sure you DON'T Believe what your spouting, in fact I have your own word that you don't.
You want law that creates Anchor Babies, but you don't want Anchor Babies. Yes, one of us definitely has a cognitive dissonance.