Replies

And I agree. I’ve never said anything different, despite all your posturing on the subject.

Maybe someone else would like to have that fight with you. But you’re not going to get anywhere pretending I’ve said things and then arguing with them.

If it is not salient to your point, why bring it up?

"If it is not salient to your point, why bring it up?"
__

I'm not sure what you think my "point" is, but the existence of a consensus, while not establishing the correctness of the theory on which the consensus exists, has some very real consequences.

I think the most significant one is that it shows that what the consensus represents -- the rejection of the "heritage-based" requirement for natural born citizenship -- is currently the prevailing view in the judicial community.

Again, that does not mean it is in any sense "correct." But it does mean, for example, that even if a future SCOTUS ruling were to change the picture, and render ineligible a future Presidential hopeful on heritage-based grounds, it would have no effect on the 2008 election, because those grounds were not in effect under the law prevailing at the time.

It's similar to what I said the other day. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it would not criminalize abortions performed yesterday.

Slavery is wrong today and it was wrong before it was abolished. But it was legal then, and people who practiced it were not considered legally accountable for something they did that was legal under the prevailing law of the time.