Certainly the court system is fallible. I never said it wasn't.
But if you're talking about what was decided, then there is one correct representation of what was decided, and then there's complete BS that doesn't represent what was actually decided.
The fact that a birther can post a BS misinterpretation of literally any case that's ever been decided only means... that a birther can post a BS misinterpretation of any case that's ever been decided.
The fallacies are obvious, in every instance. And any honest, unbiased person can see that they ARE fallacies.
The fact that you so strongly believe you’re right and everyone else is wrong means that you live in a delusional world.
No, it means that in this instance I've done my homework, and birthers have posted reams and reams of absolute BS.
If you believe that ALL the court cases that you cite were decided correctly, I’m not the only one who is having fantasies.
Look. The historical understanding of "natural born citizen" is someone who was born in the country, or someone who was born a citizen.
Citizen parents were never required.
If that understanding is correct (and it absolutely is) then all the court cases that have said that (which includes every single court case that has ever directly ruled on the matter - there aren't that many of them) is correct also.
If “natural born” was a legal term you could look it up in a law dictionary and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If you accepted what the Founding Fathers, Framers and early legal authorities actually had to say about the matter, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If you accepted what virtually every commentator on the subject had to say throughout history, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your statement - that if we could look it up in a dictionary it wouldn't be an issue - I simply don't believe you.
Because we have DOZENS of authorities who are just as good as a law dictionary, who tell us with absolute clarity that it doesn't require citizen parents, and STILL you insist that it does.
We have William Rawle, who wrote a work on the Constitution so authoritative it was a standard text for 40 years. He knew both Franklin and Washington personally, talked with them in depth about the founding principles of the nation, and undoubtedly personally knew at least half a dozen other Framers as well. Probably more.
Rawle says with absolute clarity that the children born here of aliens are natural born citizens, with all the rights pertaining to that capacity (i.e., Presidential eligibility).
He's one of the most authoritative voices imaginable on the subject. Yet you refuse to believe him.
And almost every other major legal authority IN EARLY AMERICA also says the same thing, or something very similar.
Alexander Hamilton - one of our half dozen or so most import Founders and Framers in our entire history - says if you want to know the meaning of terms in the Constitution, don't look to Vattel. Look to the language of the common law.
But you won't believe Hamilton, either.
James Madison, the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION, says that both parentage and place of birth are important when it comes to citizenship, but that place of birth is "the most certain" criterion and IS "WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES."
But you won't believe the Father of the Constitution, either.
A full FORTY PERCENT of the signers of the Constitution were in on passing a law that said children born to American parents NOT ON US SOIL were natural born citizens, too.
So THAT FULL FORTY PERCENT OF THE SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION OBVIOUSLY DID NOT BELIEVE IT NECESSARILY TOOK BOTH BIRTH ON US SOIL AND CITIZEN PARENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY.
But you won't believe the signers of the Constitution, either.
So when you say if the term were in a law dictionary we wouldn't be having this conversation, that's BULL****.
Because the Founders and the Framers and those who were closest to them have told us quite clearly what it means.
And you absolutely refuse to accept their word.
Why? Why is that?
Jeff wrote:
“The fact that a birther can post a BS misinterpretation of literally any case that’s ever been decided only means... that a birther can post a BS misinterpretation of any case that’s ever been decided. “
My response to Jeff is:
The fact that an after-birther can post a BS misinterpretation of literally any case that’s ever been decided only means... that an after-birther can post a BS misinterpretation of any case that’s ever been decided.
Where did you get your law degree and how many years have you been practicing? Until you’re posted to the Supreme Court for your final job, your interpretation of anything is just as in-valid as anyone elses.