Your “real” court was a lower court that couldn’t support its reasoning in its decision. I’ve shown directly how it was wrong. The only imagination at work was this judge who claimed that Art II left Congress with the role of defining citizenship. The Constitution reserved the power of naturalization for Congress in Art I Sec 8, and we already know that naturalized citizens are not eligible for president. Tell me your smart enough to understand that much.
edge919 wrote: “Your ‘real’ court was a lower court that couldn’t support its reasoning in its decision.”
So cite the higher court that ruled this lower court’s reasoning insufficiently supported.
edge919 wrote: “I’ve shown directly how it was wrong.”
Ah, so by “lower court” you meant that *you* are the higher authority that overruled the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You played make-believe judge of your own cause, and showed — to your own satisfaction — that you are right.
I could hardly ask for a better example to support my point. I’m not trying to deny your authority over the inside of your own head. My point is about fantasy versus reality. I cited a *real* court, speaking specifically to Article II eligibility. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?