[Non-Sequitur]

Then what the hell good was your oath??? and who were those others??? Were they stated by you as part of your oath as well???

The 'others' are the Supreme Court. If you would read the Constitution and the history of the court you would know that.

It sounds like your oath was malleable and breakable and subjective and in need of interpretation as well, and therefore not worth diddly squat.

Then would it be safe to assume that you support Ehren Watada and Michael New?

[Uncle Chip]

The 'others' are the Supreme Court. If you would read the Constitution and the history of the court you would know that.

Is that the same Supreme Court that has time and again stated the definition of "natural born citizen" in its decisions in clear words that you currently hold in disdain???

What happened to your oath??? As I said it wasn't and isn't worth diddly squat, like all else issuing forth from you.

[El Gato]

Then would it be safe to assume that you support Ehren Watada and Michael New?

They made their determination. They turned out to be wrong, as determined by a Court. (Although Watada probably went in intending such challenge, while New did not get in the situtation which prompted his challenge until he has been in for some time).

This L/C accpets that a Court will decide if he is correct or wrong in his determination.