“Dr. David Ramsey.”
So I pointed out that Birthers can’t produce any Constitutional professors willing to vouch for their theory that Presidents must have two citizen parents, and your rebuttal is to name someone who’s not a Constitutional professor, not even a lawyer, who’s been dead for almost 200 years, and who wasn’t part of the Constitutional Convention that adopted the natural born citizen requirement.
If that’s the best you can do, that just strengthens the argument that Birthers are lacking in living, breathing Constitutional scholars that back their theories.
“Apart from that, you are arguing the “Fallacy of Authority.” Look it up if you do not know what that is. (An Argument isn’t valid because of WHO agrees with it.”
That’s true to an extent. It’s certainly true in science. But law is a matter of consensus. When the Supreme Court is presented with a question of Constitutional interpretation, it’s the majority opinion of the Court that becomes binding precedent.
Could Birthers get a majority of the Supreme Court to agree that the President must have two citizen parents? Could Birthers get even a SINGLE justice to say that? Remember, before the Court ever rules, they’ll hear arguments and read briefs. Can Birthers identify a respected Constitutional lawyer who would argue their position to the Court? Could they rally the support of Constitutional scholars who would submit briefs saying that the President needs two citizen parents?
In short, no. Every Constitutional scholar in the country would say that there is NO requirement for the President to have two citizen parents. There’s no credible support for the opposing view, outside of a handful of Birther attorneys and non-attorneys who post on internet message boards. Even some Birther attorneys themselves, like Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, say the two citizen parent stuff is crap.
And the Supreme Court certainly isn’t going to take seriously legal briefs from online bloggers with no legal experience, claiming that they’ve discovered the ‘true’ meaning of the Founders.
The law is a matter of consensus. And when that consensus is universally against you, you’re wrong.
Dr. David Ramsey passed away in 1815.
I would like to hear from an acknowledged constitutional scholar who is alive in the 21st century comment on the two citizen parent theory.
I want to hear from someone of the stature of Judge Robert Bork, Judge Kenneth Starr, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, anyone on the Board of Directors of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute or perhaps a current or former conservative Republican state Attorney General or a former Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court.
Again, your knowledge is interesting in how you know things you shouldn't know if you consider the issue irrelevant. One does not desperately argue an issue they feel is of no consequence, they simply walk away. Your persistence and knowledge which you pretend is sufficient for rebuttal says more about you than what you actually write.
Dr. David Ramsey was a contemporary Historian and Scholar. In that regard, he likely has more accurate Knowledge than all your modern law professors put together. It doesn't even make any difference. Your "fallacy of authority" argument is a fallacy. One would think an educated person would know this.
If that’s the best you can do, that just strengthens the argument that Birthers are lacking in living, breathing Constitutional scholars that back their theories.
Another fallacy masquerading as an argument. You are asserting that because something hasn't been proven, it is therefore false. No, it is unproven. Didn't they teach you logic in college? You Must have a job that doesn't require it. Lawyer or Government employee i'll wager.
I actually know of Two (so far as I have bothered looking) modern Constitutional scholars that support the "birther" position. Google them yourself. (Clue for one: Gold and Blue. Clue for other: Congressional report.) You are failing in your opposition research on this one. You should have KNOWN about this the way you knew about Maya's statement.
“Apart from that, you are arguing the “Fallacy of Authority.” Look it up if you do not know what that is. (An Argument isn’t valid because of WHO agrees with it.”
That’s true to an extent. It’s certainly true in science. But law is a matter of consensus. When the Supreme Court is presented with a question of Constitutional interpretation, it’s the majority opinion of the Court that becomes binding precedent.
Yes, the legal system has made a FEATURE out of what Science and Engineering regard as a FALLACY. "Precedent." The previous opinions of others unencumbered by the need for reasoning from "first principles." It is the "fallacy of authority" run amok, and THAT is how the Legal system works.
If Engineers built buildings the way the Courts Built our legal system, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization!
Could Birthers get a majority of the Supreme Court to agree that the President must have two citizen parents? Could Birthers get even a SINGLE justice to say that? Remember, before the Court ever rules, they’ll hear arguments and read briefs. Can Birthers identify a respected Constitutional lawyer who would argue their position to the Court? Could they rally the support of Constitutional scholars who would submit briefs saying that the President needs two citizen parents?
At this point, the courts don't want to be involved. They are using legal dodges to avoid answering the question. Even should it get to the Supreme Court, the 4 Liberal Judges will rule against, the 4 conservative Judges will rule in favor, and the Nitwit Kennedy will decide the issue for everyone. FACTS by DEMOCRACY! Let us not pretend it is otherwise.
In short, no. Every Constitutional scholar in the country would say that there is NO requirement for the President to have two citizen parents. There’s no credible support for the opposing view, outside of a handful of Birther attorneys and non-attorneys who post on internet message boards. Even some Birther attorneys themselves, like Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, say the two citizen parent stuff is crap.
The fact that the Legal system is full of nonsense does not change the actual facts of History. They are simply substituting power for accuracy, and the two are not interchangeable. It took the courts something like 200 years to clarify the SECOND AMENDMENT, which is plain as day, so why should anyone expect them to expeditiously get Article II correct? I personally don't care what Judges, Courts, Lawyers, and Precedent's declare. I have done my own research, and I have yet to see a single thing that conflicts with my understanding, and No, I don't give a Sh*t about subsequent court decisions. Furthermore, if you cannot come up with an argument based on contemporaneous information circa 1790, then as far as I'm concerned, you don't have any sort of argument even if you have all the constitutional scholars in the Nation on your side.
And the Supreme Court certainly isn’t going to take seriously legal briefs from online bloggers with no legal experience, claiming that they’ve discovered the ‘true’ meaning of the Founders.
Yes, they are imperious Chicken Sh*ts. Claiming that someone has insufficient "Legal experience" engenders in me the same reaction that I have toward politicians who declare that someone has insufficient "Political experience." It is the firm belief that when the people who make up the system are consistently doing things WRONG, Achieving horrible results, then the answer is to get people who do not have their "experience."
The law is a matter of consensus. And when that consensus is universally against you, you’re wrong.
Vox Vocis Ex Cathedra. Galileo: "Yes your holiness, the Sun DOES go around the Earth." Give me a break. Facts are not decided by consensus of our Clerical Courts, or any other body. They are "Declared", and the followers obey. I prefer to live in the real world.
Just for example sake, Say a Mexican couple cross the border and have a child. They go back to Mexico. The child grows up to be a wildly popular sports star and then settles in California.
He Then runs for president.
Is this Mexican man, born of Mexican citizens and raised in Mexico, who will surely have Mexico's interests in mind, qualify? Why shouldn't Obama qualify if he doesn't?
If this Mexican is elected, and then allows complete uncontrolled immigration, and the Mexican army crosses the border into California, would we be surprised if he did nothing? We have Turkish women coming here from the Islamic world, giving birth. Their intent is to bring Sharia law here one day. Do they qualify?
Common sense tells us that Neither qualify, and neither does Barak Hussein. The sons of foreigners are not natural born citizens for Obvious reasons.