Logical folly. I believe they even have a name for it. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.
People can believe wrong things for a long time. Hundreds, if not thousands of years. This does not make the wrong thing true, just entrenched.
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot be expected to know what only your Court of the Imagination™ knows.
I did not imagine the evidence supporting Vattel as the source of the meaning of "natural born citizen." I and others found it. It existed prior to us, and is therefore not of us, but instead it is part of the fabric of reality.
Even the Supreme court noted it's existence in Minor v Happersett, as we have previously discussed.
Hearsay. A term appled to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him.
EXACTLY!!! Now apply the idea to judges a hundred years or so away from the actual events in question. What have you got? "Hearsay."
Precedents that stand for over a hundred years do not become weaker precedents but stronger.Logical folly. I believe they even have a name for it. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.
The Law of the Imagination™ strikes again.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Ruling for over two centuries.
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot be expected to know what only your Court of the Imagination™ knows.I did not imagine the evidence supporting Vattel as the source of the meaning of "natural born citizen." I and others found it. It existed prior to us, and is therefore not of us, but instead it is part of the fabric of reality.
Even the Supreme court noted it's existence in Minor v Happersett, as we have previously discussed.
The Law of the Imagination™ strikes again. In Minor, citizenship was never an issue. The natural born citizenship of Virginia Minor was a fact stipulated by both parties. Both parties stipulated that Virginia Minor was qualified to vote in every way but sex. You are king of the meaningless dicta.
Vattel did not imagine anything about the United States or its laws. Corpses lack imagination.
Hearsay. A term appled to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him.EXACTLY!!! Now apply the idea to judges a hundred years or so away from the actual events in question. What have you got? "Hearsay."
No, hearsay appears in testimony. What we have here is just your typical baseless bull(flop). In your Law of the Imagination™, the rule of hearsay applies to non-testimony, but only because you didn't know what the word meant. Such is the extent of your legal acumen. A precedent setting Court opinion is hearsay—what a concept.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Hearsay. A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him. A statement, other than one by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. fed.R.Evid. 801(c). …