You keep telling us why you think the court decisions are wrong. That’s very nice, but you need to convince judges of that, and so far you’ve accomplished absolutely zero in that regard. I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.
All of your arguments have been tried at one point or another, and they have all failed. No judge has shown the slightest sympathy to any of those arguments.
So, as I’ve said, you can continue to claim that your understanding of Supreme Court precedent is superior to that of the wide variety of jurists who have flatly ruled against you, but it just comes across as a lot of posturing. Every reputable authority so far has considered this to be a matter of settled law.
He is not arguing with a judge, he is arguing with you, or rather you are arguing with him. So far your argument seems to be "The powers that be say so, so that settles it! " Which in my mind is a pretty non compelling argument, especially for someone who is a member of a website called "Free Republic."
Where did Americans get such notions that because someone in power says so, it must therefore be so? You take a cowardly way out; Relying on a blind faith in the knowledge and wisdom of others rather than verifying the truth for yourself. A modicum of research reveals that these judges are incorrect in their understanding of the law.
I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.
A majority often means that all the fools are on the same side. Ignorance and false knowledge seemingly infuses large swaths of the modern legal system. Nonsensical results such as "citizen anchor babies" are the consequence of these ridiculous interpretations.
Well, no, this is a discussion site, so I don't have to convince judges of anything.
I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.
They haven't been ruled the same way. The Ankeney decision wasn't based on natural-born citizenship. I've addressed that already. One case cited Ankeny's non-precedent-supported dicta. Another case says that their definition of NBC is "well-established" without citing legal precedent. One said the case was frivoulous without citing a legal precedent. A couple cite a Georgia administrative hearing ... using a connect-the-dots argument, that again has no legal precedent. One says the birth certificate, which was never presented, legally establishes his eligibility. Only a couple of these actually reviewed Minor, and two of them admitted it was the only legal precedent, but simply ignored what that precedent says.
All of your arguments have been tried at one point or another, and they have all failed. No judge has shown the slightest sympathy to any of those arguments.
Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Again, Ankeny admits that Minor is a legal precedent, but upheld the lower case ruling on a different issue. No one has cited Ankeny's error to support Obama's lack of eligibility, but they certainly could ... plus Ankeny makes a few more errors on top of that.
So, as I’ve said, you can continue to claim that your understanding of Supreme Court precedent is superior to that of the wide variety of jurists who have flatly ruled against you, but it just comes across as a lot of posturing. Every reputable authority so far has considered this to be a matter of settled law.
Not so much. They've certainly found creative ways to punt the issue.