Sorry, but I’ve explained in detail why both you and sometime lurker don’t have a logical point. You need more than just personal insults such as “deluded misreading” to fall back on. Five consecutive consecutive paragraphs from the WKA decision support the point I’ve made. A “neither” and “nor” that are not even taken in full context of the quote in one paragraph does not change that.
A very logical point - you are truncating quotes to make them say the opposite of what they really say. I could go on to deal with your other fallacious arguments, but it's hard to want to discuss with someone who either doesn't understand what he is reading, or is dishonestly changing quotes to reverse their meaning.
“Sorry, but I’ve explained in detail why both you and sometime lurker don’t have a logical point. You need more than just personal insults such as “deluded misreading” to fall back on. Five consecutive consecutive paragraphs from the WKA decision support the point I’ve made. A “neither” and “nor” that are not even taken in full context of the quote in one paragraph does not change that.”
“Deluded misreading” is not a personal insult. It’s about what you wrote, the position you advanced here. For all I know you may be quite smart about many things, other than the ones at issue here.
And edge919, we’ve been through this before so you know perfectly well that I have more than insults. Here’s what three real judges on the bench of a real court unanimously held on this issue:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels