There's a ton of arguments and legal scholars, good conservative ones that don't buy the birther crap (see #42 for one of many arguments why Cruz is constitutionally eligible). And here is someone citing JEFF'S UTTER BULLSH*T as proof of something.
Let me inform you of something. Jeff is an unmitigated liar. If he says the sun is out, don't believe him. He is absolutely wrong about Bayard, but that doesn't stop him from quoting Bayard as supporting his position. Well here is Bayard's Son REBUKING Jeff's position.
Like I said, Jeff is an obsessed, pathological Liar. This isn't the first time he's been caught in an absolute and demonstrable lie.
Bayard doesn't support Jeff's position at all, but Jeff has been claiming that he does for the past month or so.
Now to address your other points. The courts may be able to piss on your head and tell you it's raining, but I, and probably a lot of others are not going to accept it simply because they say so.
For a long period of History, we have seen the courts make a mockery of our legal system by proclaiming nonsensical, ridiculous things as law. The occasions of such are so numerous that no one who has kept up with them any longer regards the Courts and the legal system as honest or even competent.
The Courts are simply politics by fiat. You appoint the Judges, you get the decisions you want. That there is any longer any sort of intellectual objectivity to it is stark nonsense.
We have been sailing off the charts since Roosevelt and Truman stacked the courts with Liberal kooks for 20 years. It is as a result of this that we got nonsensical decisions like Wickard, Miranda, Roe, Kelo, Lawrence, and the latest cherry on top of this idiocy, Obamacare. (as a TAX, mind you.)
So let me sum it up. About the courts, I do not give a D@mn. They have power, but they don't have truth, and we ought not to grant them the power that comes with respect for their authority.
They act like Clowns and we should regard them as clowns. The system is broken, and it will eventually collapse. We should prepare for the next iteration, if we live long enough.
It’s normally considered common courtesy to ping someone to a post in which you accuse them of “UTTER BULLSH*T,” being an “unmitigated liar,” being an “obsessed, pathological Liar,” and so forth.
Not that I expect common courtesy from you, but still. You could at least attempt to keep up the appearance of it.
There’s no conflict between James Asheton Bayard, Jr.’s position and that of his son Thomas.
James told us that if a person is a citizen by birth, then he’s a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.
Thomas told us that if a German father WHO IS DOMICILED NOT IN THE UNITED STATES BUT IN GERMANY comes over to the United States and has a child here DURING HIS BRIEF, UNDOMICILED STAY, then that child is not a US citizen.
Now the point is debatable. The Supreme Court in Wong (1898) found that the child born here of DOMICILED alien parents was a natural born US citizen.
And yes, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation, but the spelled it out earlier in the core reasoning of the case. The core reasoning of the case is precedent just as much as the final proclamation is.
But they didn’t necessarily specify that children born here of NON-DOMICILED aliens are born US citizens.
That’s how it’s largely been interpreted since then, but I don’t think it’s an essential conclusion of the case.
That being the case, there’s not necessarily any conflict between the views of James Bayard, his son Thomas, and the Supreme Court in Wong.
James Bayard says that if you’re born a citizen, you’re a natural born citizen.
Thomas Bayard says that if you’re born on US soil of an alien parent who’s over here as a temporary tourist, but doesn’t live here, you’re not born a citizen.
And the Supreme Court says that if you’re born on US soil of alien parents who have established their DOMICILE here, who LIVE here, then you ARE a natural born citizen.
All of the above sound reasonable to me.