LOL!! I have to add this to my list of "Stupid DiogenesLamp Debating Techniques."
We've been on this topic for two years! But now you want to claim you've got some Super Duper Secret Sources that so prove you right? Have you been smoking something with Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse? ("I've got 'universe shattering evidence,' but I just can't say what that is.")
At one point I went back and read through most all of your posts on this topic pre-dating when I first started reading along. That solidified my view that you really don't know what you're talking about. You haven't revealed your "Universe Shattering Sources" to me. Nor have you revealed them to anyone else here. That's because they don't exist.
You are all smoke and mirrors. Sheesh.
How do you translate the "Appeal to Unidentified Evidence" in Latin? I think that fits under any most anyone's understanding of logical fallacies.
James Madison said one thing when defending his political ally and friend, William Loughton Smith, and he did quite the opposite when he was President, and confronted with the problem of James McClure.
Political cases are a poor guide to establishing legal principles. There are all sorts of factors (personal, evidentiary, political) that can bear on an executive's actions. At the end of the day, the "case" was resolved when James Monroe wrote a letter which affirmed simply that McClure had been born in South Carolina while making not one word about his father's status. It's a poor piece of evidence to support some "citizen father" necessity. I can argue from this case to support my position as well.
It would seem to me that his actions should be regarded as speaking louder than his words.
Of course. Your consistent posture in the end is appeal to your personal opinion.
But in world of historians and judges words matter. And the McClure case can't be made to somehow contradict Madison's formal writings on the Constitution.
Paste another appropriate and mundane retort to idiot here.