WKA was found to be both a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen, and those two classes were held to be identical.
You will have a hard time understanding a case you refuse to read.
And what a court ‘holds’ is far broader than just the final statement of the decision. You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence. Although, of course, to date you have refused to read anything...
“The decision of a court or judge; the reasoning underlying such a decision.” - Webster’s New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010
And what a court ‘holds’ is far broader than just the final statement of the decision. You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence. Although, of course, to date you have refused to read anything...
“The decision of a court or judge; the reasoning underlying such a decision.”
I completely concur, sir.
Allow me to direct your attention to post 875. Any comments you might have are welcome.
I've shown the exact words of the decsion itself, and it says no such thing.
-----
You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence.
You might want to look up legal precedent
Of which Wong Kim Ark is not.
The case is, however, suitable for the purpose of showing the original intent of the term 'natural-born citizen' still existed even then.
Of which Wong Kim Ark was not.
Someone needs to tell Chief Justice Waite. He claims to have looked at the 14th amendment, and couldn't find that definition in there anywhere.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens
Your statement REQUIRES Justice Waite to be an idiot. And this is why I normally just skip over everything you write.