Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.
And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.
Hahahahaha!
So now you're telling us that all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTAL BS, since none of them were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers?
So we can completely disregard pretty much every word of the BS you've been spewing for the past 2 or 3 years?
That IS what you're saying, isn't it?
“Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.”
To this you can add all of the state courts and federal courts below SCOTUS who have opined on the meaning of NBC.
Even the Ankeny Court acknowledged in dicta that the WKA opinion did NOT rule that WKA was an NBC. The Ankeny Court stated that the fact pattern of WKA did not match the claimed fact pattern of Barry’s official “Dreams” narrative. Ankeny only agreed that the lower state court’s mash-up of the 14A with WKA and concluding that Barry was NBC was “persuasive.”
IMO there is NO SCOTUS ruling on whether a candidate like Barry would be NBC in an on-point case (identical or even close in fact pattern) in light of the “evolving” legal case law interpreting the Constitution up to the present moment. Therefore declarative statements that Barry is or is not NBC are premature.