[sometime lurker]

You have to read a piece of law to understand common sense? I begin to see what your difficulty is. :) If an animal is born as a Sheep, no act of congress will cause it to be a Horse. Congress may CALL it a "Horse" but it will remain a Sheep. The Supreme Court may Decree that it is a "Horse" but it is still a sheep. Congress may pass a law which says that all dictionaries must hereafter describe the animal which is currently known as a sheep, as a Horse, but this is just games with words, similar to what your side tries to do with the words "natural born citizen."

And this is where your disdain for legal matters becomes clear. Like any discipline, there are meanings to certain words inside the discipline that are not the same as they are in common use. If you are claiming a specific legal meaning, link or cite. If you are trying to use your "common sense" idea of what they mean, that is not binding on the law.

[DiogenesLamp]

And this is where your disdain for legal matters becomes clear. Like any discipline, there are meanings to certain words inside the discipline that are not the same as they are in common use. If you are claiming a specific legal meaning, link or cite. If you are trying to use your "common sense" idea of what they mean, that is not binding on the law.

It is good that you see my contempt for the Imperial legal system coming through. I often wonder if I am not making it clear how little they are deserving of respect, and how much I think they, and much of their methodology need to be thrown over the ramparts.

Yes, the legal system lives in it's own little sophistic world, and I would dearly love to see some comeuppance come crashing through it's obnoxious indifference to reality.

It is my opinion that they are there to serve US, not the other way around. My point is still valid. Something is not true merely because a court says so.

Reality does not change when the courts make squeaking noises.