Replies

Read in context, C.J. Marshall is analyzing a point about domicile in a case involving international law. You can't take a small portion of the material he cites which actually speaks to a different point not at issue, apply that to a completely different context (municipal law involving citizenship), and claim that represents the Judge's view on that other matter. That's absurd.

Were it irrelevant to his point, he would not have cited it. Or do you only consider him a fool when it suits you? Justice Marshall started his quote of Vattel where he did because he regarded it as SALIENT to the point. Were it not, he would not have bothered with it.

Given your tendency to cite IRRELEVANT crap, I can only surmise you project this same weakness onto other people, but I assure you, Justice Marshall is more competent than are you.

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.