Sorry for those multiple errors in a very short post. ;-(
The basic fact remains -- which seems to somehow elude OneWingedShark's intellectual grasp -- that every state which was a state in 1868 has now officially ratified the 14th Ammendment.
OneWingedShark: "...why should I assume that everything the government says is legitimate actually is legitimate?
That is, what is it that keeps the government from lying to me?"
The same things that help keep witnesses from lying on the witness stand: an oath to tell the truth, with associated punishments, hard evidence, cross examinations and opposing witnesses.
Ultimately, juries of experts and public opinions decide which assertions to accept or reject.
Of course, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish.
But if you chose to reject as false established facts which most people hold true, then you eliminate any possibility of your arguments influencing their opinions, FRiend.
Which means that, if there was some case decided using the 14th amendment prior to this ratification that it is illegitimate. That would be like the USSC deciding Obamacare was legal during its initial vote. Furthermore, the ratifications mentioned (recognizing the 14th as valid) may be fraudulent; that is, if the government put out that "everyone else accepts this" to each state individually, and then uses each state's individual answer as proof of consensus may indeed produce a different result than that of a straight and open yea-or-nay type of vote. This is especially true when the law in question is regarded as "settled law" by most people.
The federal government has lost its benefit of the doubt from me; I no longer think that "procedural irregularities" are aught but the practice of "might makes right" / "we're the government; you're not" type philosophies.
The same things that help keep witnesses from lying on the witness stand: an oath to tell the truth, with associated punishments, hard evidence, cross examinations and opposing witnesses.
Ultimately, juries of experts and public opinions decide which assertions to accept or reject.
Ah, like in Fast & Furious? Or Zimmerman?
No, there is objective good and evil and there is nothing keeping the government from committing great evil; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are all instances supporting this.
But if you chose to reject as false established facts which most people hold true, then you eliminate any possibility of your arguments influencing their opinions, FRiend.
Oy vey. You do not seem to grasp; I am trying to talk about a concept, of which the fraudulent passage of the 14th amendment (at that time), is an example.
Furthermore, that argument is exactly that used on anyone who is skeptical of AGW. Because AGW is settled science, based on a consensus of scientists.