Replies

Which is why I only said it "suggests" the conclusion, not that it proves it. Similarly, you've probably heard that correlation does not equal causation, which is absolutely true. But any scientist or skeptic will tell you that correlation does imply causation; it is through observed correlations that testable hypotheses are developed.

And the Birther "two citizen parent" argument, as well as my claim that said argument is meritless, is testable in its own way. As I've pointed out, the "two citizen parents are required" argument didn't arise until November 2008. What things can be done to test whether it's a legitimate argument or not?

You could check to see whether there have been other Presidents or Vice Presidents who had non-citizen parents.

You could check to see whether there have been other Presidential candidates who had non-citizen parents, or parents with publicly unknown citizenship status.

You could consult with or poll some attorneys who specialize in Constitutional law, and ask them whether natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents.

You could poll Constitutional law professors at law schools and ask them the same question.

You could check old Constitutional law textbooks or law review articles, and see whether any actually state that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents. Or whether the books make any reference to Vattel in their discussion of natural born citizenship.

And if you did those kinds of tests, what would you find?

Which is why I only said it "suggests" the conclusion, not that it proves it. Similarly, you've probably heard that correlation does not equal causation, which is absolutely true. But any scientist or skeptic will tell you that correlation does imply causation; it is through observed correlations that testable hypotheses are developed.

What causation?? You assume timing relates to or causes incorrectness. It's a nonsense correlation.

And if you did those kinds of tests, what would you find?

That you like making up silly tests that have little to do with reality?? The Supreme Court gave a clear definition. Whether people understood or were aware of that Supreme Court definition in the months prior to November 2008 doesn't make it less accurate or applicable.