Yada yada Yada. I work on billable hours and nobody is paying me to brief this, solve this, or be a hall monitor for rowdy juveniles. The manner in which you conduct your argument is entirely up to you, but if the consequence is that some of us cannot take you seriously, oh well. For my part, I don’t know nor do even care what your history is respecting your debates here. Not my job, and I don’t have time. I do know this: if you only care about preaching to your choir while demonizing people who want to keep faith with the Constitution, keep doing what you’re doing. If you want to actually want to win people to your view, you need to try something better.
As for appeal to authority, it is a logic error for good reason. Say a respected preacher gets up and says, “Judas went out and hung himself; go thou and do likewise,” should you blindly accept that statement? It’s all authoritative, after all. No, you are responsible for your own analysis, to the extent you are able. But what if a hundred or a thousand preachers all say the same wrong thing? It’s still on you and me to do the right thing.
In law, the opinions of experts are not binding on anyone. They may be used as persuasive authority, but the holding of the case is all that binds, and those holdings are often quite narrow in scope, to leave the door open for future unexplored variations in the facts or the law. Simply citing a so-called legal expert, without unfolding the full power of the logic that drove them to their conclusion, so that it may be openly inspected, is just hiding the ball, and expecting bluster to take the place of logic. This will work on the unsophisticated and thoughtless among us, and they are legion. But it is a cheap jedi mind trick, and will not work on those who can think for themselves.
However?
In the medical field what I am doing is called “step therapy” -— all other remedies have been tried on the die hard birthers, and though we might wish other remedies were beneficial, we are left with the most obvious, yet blunt and harsh point:
NO person, given power under the law to side with the Birthers, to date, has actually sided with the Birthers!
Trying to refute their very weak legal case history is like playing “whack a mole” -— they will never agree to any issue being resolved. The birthers will immediately post another weak citation.
This issue will, most likely, never be decided to their satisfaction in a Court of Law.
However, the Courts do not need to involve themselves.
The Birthers wish to transfer political power to the Judicial Branch.
I strongly object to that anti-Constitutional mind set.