1. You don’t think the 14th Amendment applies to most Americans, those who are born here to two citizen parents.
It's not what I think. It's what the court said: In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Now, LOGICALLY, this is where you first go wrong:You said,"It's not what I think. It's what the court said:
Actually, a better way to say is, "It's not what I think. It's what I think the court said."
Because if you look at it that way, you can see the intermediate step between what the court said and your conclusion, is your way of reading and understanding stuff.
Most people, if they come to a conclusion that leads to bad results, or illogical stuff, will start to question the way they are reading and understanding stuff. Like if they read something and come to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation, then they would start questioning their ability to read and comprehend. They would question their own skills.
If such a person had a habit of coming to conclusions that were weird and bizarre, like you do, then there is even more reason they should start to question the way they are reading and understanding things. Especially, when people on your supposed side of the political fence are telling you that your thinking is screwed up real bad. But look at you.
1) The Indiana court is wrong and they are all Hillbilly Hoosiers.
2)The Lynch Clarke judge is wrong.
3)The Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong, or they didn't really say what every body think they said.
4)The Minor judges defined NBC, and the "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" don't count, when everybody else is asking, "Gee, why wouldn't "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" mean they didn't do it.
5)Thinking all the conservative judges and lawyers are in on a conspiracy.
6)The Indiana court didn't say Obama was eligible.
This list could be a lot longer, but do you see the common thing in all of them??? It is the way YOU read and understand things that stands between what the court says, and what YOU CONCLUDE the court is saying.
My father used to ask me, when I blamed someone or something else for my screw ups, "If you stick your tongue in a light socket are you going to blame electricity for what happens???"
Well, with you, I think you would. You'd say, it's not supposed to happen that I fried myself. I'm not a light bulb. What's wrong with that lamp and electricity? And people would try to tell you that you were wrong and pretty stupid to do it, and keep doing it, because you kept getting bad results that didn't feel good. But you would blame the lamp, the house, the wires, the power company, and never see that the thing that wasn't working right, was YOU.
There's no "intermediate step." The quote I provided is an exact quote. "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""
Second, the context of the Minor quote is consistent. Justice Waite rejected the 14th amendment as being needed for conferring citizenship on women who were born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens ... which includes the 14th amendment ... not necessary for natural-born citizens = does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
And ... here's another challenge, ez squeezy. Justice Gray said that Waite " ... proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision." Notice he doesn't say that Waite resorted to common law as an aid in saying who shall be natural-born citizens. It was aid in the construction of this "provision" ... "provision" is referring to the 14th amendment: "the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question" ... soooooooooooooo the challenge is to go to the Minor decision and find where Waite used common law to aid in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment. He didn't use common law to define NBC. That, as I have shown, is a verbatim match of the law of nations quote.
Like if they read something and come to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation, then they would start questioning their ability to read and comprehend.
Sorry, but this is an ignorant strawman. Nobody said the 14th amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation. You're overreacting. I've only pointed out that Waite rejected the citizen clause for NBCs. The rest of the 14th amendment is still applicable. Citizenship is NOT the only thing the 14th amendment deals with.
1) The Indiana court is wrong and they are all Hillbilly Hoosiers.
You ignore that I showed several contradictions including the killer contradiction where the Hillbillies admit that WKA didn't declare WKA to be a natural-born citizen. Only Hillbilly Hoosiers ... and apparently people like you ... can be stupid enough to think a decision defines something it didn't do.
2)The Lynch Clarke judge is wrong.
And again, you ignore that I showed this court burying its head in the sand regarding a very clear SCOTUS case that said children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. This decision undermines Lynch's rationale on common-law. The Lynch judge cited the decision but said he read it differently, even though there's a direct quote that contradicts this judge's belief.
3)The Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong, or they didn't really say what every body think they said.
Wow, you're struggling to articulate your whine. Obviously you know that I haven't said the Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong. I've cited Wong Kim Ark repeatedly to show that YOU are wrong. The words are clear. The only confusion is on YOUR part.
4)The Minor judges defined NBC, and the "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" don't count, when everybody else is asking, "Gee, why wouldn't "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" mean they didn't do it.
You're getting less and less coherent squeezy. Yes, Minor defined NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The court said some authorities go farther and declare some persons to be citizens (NOT natural-born citizens, just citizens) without reference to the citizenship of the parents. For this class there are doubts. That's WHY people like Julia Lynch and Wong Kim Ark went to court ... to resolve the doubts about their citizenship.
5)Thinking all the conservative judges and lawyers are in on a conspiracy.
Never said this. Now you're just making up stuff.
6)The Indiana court didn't say Obama was eligible.
It didn't. You were challenged to find a direct quote from this court saying Obama is eligible. You have failed. Why won't you be honest and admit your failure?? I'm right about this and you know it. It's time to quit pretending otherwise.
My father used to ask me, when I blamed someone or something else for my screw ups, "If you stick your tongue in a light socket are you going to blame electricity for what happens???"
How come you didn't learn this lesson?? You blame me for YOUR screw-ups. You have failed at the simple challenges I have given you. You've shown that you cannot read. You've invented fictitious gripes about conspiracies and "intermediate steps." You've acted like a child (which was clearly illustrated in post #503). Like I said, I'm here to help.