“When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,”
I don’t want to be mean, Mr Bryan, and I won’t be. I’ve read through your posting history and found nothing but argumentative overreach. Your material is a stretch at every point in your journey.
Your demeanor is sour and your argument is as if you just type what some body tells you.
You post as if you are a well respected constitutional scholar, you are not.
But you may have played one, from time to time. Give it up or you will suffer great emotional devastation. Go back to the progressive herd where you belong.
[BladeBryan had written:]Well then let's examine my "overreach" on the very bit you decided to quote me on there. I got "clear" from Gordon's article in Maryland law review:When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,I don’t want to be mean, Mr Bryan, and I won’t be. I’ve read through your posting history and found nothing but argumentative overreach. Your material is a stretch at every point in your journey.
It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." -- Charles Gordon, 'Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,' 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968).I got "settled" from Jill Pryor's Yale Law Journal article:
It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." -- Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).Then my words, the one bit that you, widdle_wabbit, chose to quote in making your "overreach" point were:
When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled,Oh look -- the sources I cited said exactly what I claimed. Can you explain how that is "overreach", widdle_wabbit?
Even more interesting, widdle_wabbit, is that you chopped my sentence in half. Here is that one sentence of mine that you chose to partially quote:
When the journal articles by Gordon and Pryor stated that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled, no one came out in disagreement.Now that reads as a bold reach, so easily refuted if incorrect. All you'd have to do is cite any rebuttal of my citations and I would have to eat my words. I claimed that there was no disagreement until the 2008 election, giving you decades to work with. How come you snipped my claim in half instead of simply citing an example that shows my bold overreach to be wrong?
widdle_wabbit wrote:
You post as if you are a well respected constitutional scholar, you are not.No, I've made clear that I am a debunker, as a hobby, not a legal scholar as you falsely put me on. I identified myself as a hobbyist debunker in this thread, and Widdle_wabbit, you claimed to have read through my posting history. Were that true you would have read me explaining over and over that I am not "a well respected constitutional scholar". As you wold know if you had read my posting history, as you claimed, I assert that the issue here is utter crank nonsense that demeans the conservative cause.