The article is long, and it contains multiple clear fallacies.
These fallacies lead to a conclusion which is astonishingly out of touch with reality. The author has obviously put a lot of thought into this long article, but it goes way off base and never gets back on track.
Here is the astonishingly-out-of-touch-with-reality conclusion:
The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.
This is every bit as in touch with reality as proclaiming, "Therefore, the earth is flat."
Really. It is.
The law is absolutely settled in regard to those born on US soil. Unless they are the children of ambassadors, royalty, or an invading army, they are natural born citizens.
If you don't believe me, get on the phone and call any professor of Constitutional law at pretty much any university. Call Hillsdale College, for example, known as a preeminent conservative institution.
Just because "Sourcery" wrote it on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
It isn't. And I'll give you an immediate indication of WHY it isn't.
"Sourcery" makes up an entire THEORETICAL construct, and then tries to cram our history and law into it. In doing this, he makes up his own legal theory, which is NOT the theory that those in our history used.
Notice what his writing is long on. It's long on his theory of what "natural law" is. It's short on the evidence of what those in our history understood the natural law, and the common law that followed it, to be.
That's not the direction I went. I didn't start by creating my own legal theory, from ideas that I decided I liked. That's a great way to get it all completely wrong, which is exactly what Sourcery has done.
I started with THE ACTUAL HISTORY AND THE LAW, and found the legal theories that were actually USED by our Founding Fathers and those who came before them. Because that's the only way to get to the right conclusion.
I'm not even sure how many major fallacies there are in the paper. Maybe I will count them. Maybe I will write something that points out where Sourcery went wrong.
His paper really doesn't have anything new in it. The major fallacies have been around for a while.
But the paper is between 45 and 90 pages long. You can't expect an instant response.
As far as I can determine, nothing will come of the controversy regarding the eligibility of AKA- Barack Obama, POTUS.
Only the Supreme Court can settle this issue. I speak as a “Birther”, However, I am perplexed by your rigorous defense favoring eligibility.
I am curious, if you have such low esteem for rubes, like myself or other posters on Free Republic, why even bother?
I am not a challenging your examples or arguments, I couldn’t care less. Most of the posters at Free Republic commenting on this subject seemed to be concerned with an absent of an appropriate legal ruling from a high court.
What motivates you to be so interested in persuading those whom are conceivably, unpersuadable?
Seriously? You're still not rebutting a single point in Sourcery's essay.
As I commented in my last reply to you, the sum total of your voluminous replies on this subject have amounted to little more than rejection and denial of the reason and logic that's been presented to you.
I read what you posted on the subject upthread, and it reads like a mere cut and paste of various items you've collected. Nowhere do I see where you've made a cogent, thoughtful argument for your position.
However humble, my first response to you at least contained the germ of my personal reasoning on the topic.
I also noticed that you didn't give Sourcery a courtesy ping to your last comment. You've been around long enough to know that's expected.
For what it's worth, you're failing to make a convincing case for your opinion on the subject. The overall tone of your comments reveals an emotional, rather than an intellectual grounding in your position, which goes hand in glove with your failure to rebut the opposing view.