The sun doesn't rise and set by it, but US law sure does. I refer to this fallacy list.
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam) – note cases in which it is not fallacious. (IR) Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam): Not always fallacious. This form of argumentation is fallacious when an appeal to an inappropriate authority figure is used to gain acceptance of a claim.[emphasis in original]So when it comes to US law, I don't consider SCOTUS an inapproprate authority figure. And when it comes to the Constitution, I don't consider James Madison an inappropriate authority figure either, do you?
Nor does the fact that the SCOTUS didn't decide to hear the case prove that it has no merit. There are 4 idiots on the supreme court, and 1 nitwit.
Yes, but there are 4 good justices, and only 4 are needed to agree in conference for the case to proceed.
Yes, the recognition by the law for unborn children is just crazy talk.
Claiming that knowing the law of the land is jus soli and having you say that's tantamount to aprroving of abortion is crazy talk.
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam) – note cases in which it is not fallacious. (IR) Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam): Not always fallacious. This form of argumentation is fallacious when an appeal to an inappropriate authority figure is used to gain acceptance of a claim.[emphasis in original]
What makes it a fallacy of Authority is that none of SCOTUS wrote the law, so they are only expressing opinions of opinions. Better to get it straight from the Horses mouth.
So when it comes to US law, I don't consider SCOTUS an inapproprate authority figure. And when it comes to the Constitution, I don't consider James Madison an inappropriate authority figure either, do you?
He's the only one you've got, and I consider his explanation inconsistent with the modern day meaning of his words. "Place" in context during his time, was synonymous with family and community. Indeed, his very next words are an appeal that Mr. Smith's ancestors were some of the earliest settlers of the colony.
Would he regard the son of a Foreign Man as "natural born"? I doubt it. Would he have accepted "Anchor Babies" as "natural born"? I doubt it.
Yes, but there are 4 good justices, and only 4 are needed to agree in conference for the case to proceed. Perhaps they fear the result if they did? Liberal Judges have no qualms about flipping off the great body of the public. (Forced busing?) Conservative Judges might not be so foolhardy. I don't know. It could also be that they don't know the truth because they've been taught the wrong law for so long. Too many people equate Wong Kim Ark as defining "natural born citizen" when it really doesn't. I do not know the reason why they chose not to take one of the cases, but one can not postulate a specific reason when NO reason is forthcoming.
Claiming that knowing the law of the land is jus soli and having you say that's tantamount to aprroving of abortion is crazy talk.
I'm saying both theories rest on the same foundation; That some "magical event" occurs at birth to bestow simultaneous legal rights and citizenship.
This is not what pro-life people believe. They believe that rights are inherent in the existence of an unborn child.