So the considered opinion of every genuine early American legal authority and source close to the Founders and Framers is "argument from numbers?"
What do you call an argument from one genuine minor authority (who was over several counties in one state) and from one disproven quack? An "argument from a complete lack of numbers?"
Please explain to me how that is not utterly "retarded" (to use your terminology).
The only people in creation who don't agree are a bunch of quack law theorists, virtually none of whom have any legal training at all.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Heh. Next time you have a serious medical condition, I have a group of juju doctors you can go to. They don't have any medical training, but they've got some cool medical theories, and make extensive use of psychedelics. So the treatment is very enjoyable.
The Notion that we should strap the chains of feudalism back on us so soon after we had successfully thrown them off seems so contradictory that it is beyond belief that people such as yourself can even consider the idea plausible.
A rule for who is and is not a citizen is hardly the "chains of feudalism."
Do you sell cars in your day job?
Still using Goebbels old adage. REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT. It is you who are guilty of what you accuse.
I have chosen to repeat, repeat, repeat the truth because you have chosen to endlessly repeat, repeat, repeat fallacies, misconceptions, and twistings of our Constitution and our laws.
Anybody can look up my points and see that they are true. Anybody can look up my exposes of your numerous fallacious claims and see that they are, in fact, fallacious.
So the more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone who is determinedly pushing quack theories.
It should be obvious even to you by now that these theories and claims will never go anywhere. Not only will no court in the land ever rule in favor of these false claims, no major conservative Constitutional body (such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will ever support them.
And even in the tiny corner in which you've been able to repeat the false claims, you are thoroughly embattled. There are a few people who still believe them, but not anybody who actually does the research and reading and looks at the evidence of history and law with a cool head.
It is NOT the considered opinion of "every genuine early American legal authority and source close to the Founders and Framers ". That you keep characterising it as such is a consequence of Your habit of lying about it. You ignore Marshall, you ignore Washington, you ignore Monroe, you ignore David Ramsey, you simply ignore anyone who doesn't parrot back that stupid British crap.
Heh. Next time you have a serious medical condition, I have a group of juju doctors you can go to. They don't have any medical training, but they've got some cool medical theories, and make extensive use of psychedelics. So the treatment is very enjoyable.
In the legal system, it is the jujus who run things. Abortion? 14th amendment. Prayer in Schools? 14th Amendment. Wickard v Fillburn? 14th Amendment. Anchor babies? 14th amendment. Birth Tourism? 14th amendment.
That you even compare the legal industry with the medical is a demonstration of how ridiculous you are.
A rule for who is and is not a citizen is hardly the "chains of feudalism."
If the rule says *I* OWN anyone born on my land, then yes it is.
Do you sell cars in your day job?
No, I design and repair complex electronic control systems. What do YOU do?
Anybody can look up my points and see that they are true.
They can look up and see you endlessly proclaiming them to be true, which is a very different thing. But actually true? No, they can't see that because they aren't. If they were so obviously true, why do you need to lie about them? Why do you have to distort John Bingham's position to support your argument?
Anybody can look up my exposes of your numerous fallacious claims and see that they are, in fact, fallacious.
Not anybody, you have to be a brain dead/brain washed retard. Only the gullible believe the founders were foolish enough to invent "anchor babies."
So the more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone who is determinedly pushing attacking quack theories.
There, fixed it for ya.
It should be obvious even to you by now that these theories and claims will never go anywhere. Not only will no court in the land ever rule in favor of these false claims, no major conservative Constitutional body (such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will ever support them.
Such was once said about slavery, and thank God those fools were WRONG. (just like you.)
And even in the tiny corner in which you've been able to repeat the false claims, you are thoroughly embattled. There are a few people who still believe them, but not anybody who actually does the research and reading and looks at the evidence of history and law with a cool head.
Embattled? I hardly see any opposition anywhere. You are probably the best your side has to offer, but most of your supporters are people like Kansas58 or douginthearmy. You deserve them.
No, what we are is shouted down in the mainstream of the Press and the legal system. The Press hates any challenge to their boyfriend, and the legal system hates any challenge to their "precedents."
Neither is proof that they are correct, but it is enough to convince them to believe with blind faith and to attack or dismiss those who don't.