Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
Mr. C.'s kin indeed were "inducted," and "served" in a world contemporaneous with the Hines ruling. Moreover, there were a multitude of statutory laws written during, and AFTER, the Hines ruling, which of course illustrated Federal preeminence in area of immigration, and supports Mr. C.'s original personal position. But, that observation will only feed your seemingly obsessive need to cite case law, regulations, statutory law, detailed instruction on how to give enemas, blah, blah, blah............

But personally, I think you have missed the entire point of Lee's post.

You just may ponder the reality-based fact that most servicemen in World War Two, such as Mr. C.'s uncles, spent more time considering how to stay alive and win a war, rather, than following each and every inflection, update or slant, contained in each and every Supreme Court ruling. I am sure Messers Black, Douglas, Vison, and the like, were rather grateful for the servicemen's necessary priorities. Unlike you, they did not enjoy the luxury of spewing case law, and ruling from the inflated bench of Speak Up.
As I pointed out within a year of Hines SCOTUS issued a decision in which Hines was placed in context and demonstrated that the principles of which I speak are not new.

I am not going to judge what his ancestors new or didn't know. I am pretty confident my late grand-uncle (who fought in World War II that I had plenty of discussions with) that while he may not have known of the exact source in the Constitution or case-law supporting it he knew of the principle of dual-sovereignty and federalism and the role it played in the balance of powers. Just as my late father and late father-in-law when they fought in the Korean war, or my uncles when they fought in Vietnam and the same went for me when I enlisted 2 days after my 18th birthday in 1984.