That is, if what you picture-quoted were to actually be in some way binding. Stating it was referenced "by SCOTUS 1948" is a less than convincing way to present it. What particular 1948 Supreme Court case? Let's see how the Court treated and applied it, if at all. Yet if they did treat it as authoritative and binding, then you lose, sir. Undone by your own jpg. Again.
I do not recall precisely what it was about the last time you figuratively shot yourself in the foot-es with one of your posted images (as those would relate to the context of ongoing conversations around here, particularly my own words) but I do recall having pointing it out to you.
This is at least the second time your own lines of legal "evidence" (presented in jpg. form) have gone against what I otherwise have understood is your position.
If you're just playing around and not intending anyone take you serious, then ok, I guess.
This old fish has spit plenty of hooks before, and ain't that easy to drag into the boat.
(When I was a commercial fisherman someone once asked me "what kind of fish are you looking for?." I answered, "dumb ones, the smart ones are too hard to catch.")