I pointed out where they absolutely did issue an opinion on the definition of NBC and I refuted your argument that it was “only” in the dicta and you say I admitted they consistely dodged the case? This is where I brush your dust off my feet and have no further dealings with you because there is no point arguing with someone who has no regard for the truth whatsoever.
British statutes. Ha!
I clearly disagreed with your assertion, and pointed out what I regarded as very good proof you are completely wrong on that point.
and I refuted your argument that it was “only” in the dicta and you say I admitted they consistely dodged the case?
My recollection is that you said they never directly addressed the "natural born citizen" eligibility for presidency issue.
I agreed. "They clearly dodged the case."
This is where I brush your dust off my feet and have no further dealings with you because there is no point arguing with someone who has no regard for the truth whatsoever.
Funny you should say that, because I have put forth what I regard as very good arguments, yet you have not reconsidered anything which you already believe.
I have learned that when people don't want to know something, they simply will not acknowledge any proof that it is different from what they wish to believe.
I see this phenomena on the Civil War, on people falsely convicted of crimes (like Derrick Chauvin), on the 2020 election vote fraud issue, the Covid "vaccine" issue, and I see it on this issue as well.
People simply are not amenable to reason, and though you put forth an argument and present evidence that makes very good sense to you, it is not compelling to people who simply wish to believe otherwise.
I think it is a quirk of being human. I certainly find it to be quite common among people.
Adios.