3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.
“3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.”
You omitted another supposed Constitutional scholar, Barack Hussein Obama, who disagrees with me about the natural born citizen clause. Peculiar, isn’t it, how there are so many supposed experts who cannot read a simple sentence and comprehend what so many Founding Fathers had no trouble understanding what John Jay had to say? It is a sad testament to today’s educational system and generations who have no understanding or respect for logic and avoiding logical fallacies, such as the informal fallacies you just used here. For example (from Wikipedia):
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[64][65] (Red Herring Fallacy)
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.[66] (Red Herring Fallacy)
Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in science or argument.[1][2][3] (Red Herring Fallacy)
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[4] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[5]
A is an authority on a particular topicA says something about that topicA is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error,[8] bias, dishonesty, falling prey to groupthink, speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise, or if they are not a true expert at all.[9] Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it.[10][11]
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[84]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[17][18] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. ergo decedo – where a critic’s perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[29]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[30]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[33]
Pooh-pooh - dismissing an argument unworthy of serious consideration.[91]
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition a.k.a. argumentum ad infinitum
Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. (Red Herring Fallacy)
Presentism (literary and historical analysis) In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. The historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a fallacy also known as the “fallacy of nunc pro tunc”. He has written that the “classic example” of presentism was the so-called “Whig history”, in which certain eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs. This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. “Whig history” or “whiggishness” are often used as synonyms for presentism particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist.[3]
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[76] (Red Herring Fallacy)
3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.
Isn’t this the argument for man made global warming? Look at all these scientist that agree with me.
Honestly to all, please read and understand what is at risk here. It is really important.
Mark Levin has repeatedly admitted that he has NOT studied immigration and naturalization law. And Laurence Tribe, well, he is noting but a modern day treasonous Benedict Arnold.
“3 US solicitors general (conservative, liberal & libertarian) as well as liberal Laurence Tribe & conservation Mark Levin (among many other constitutional scholars) disagree with you.”
Yup. But yet some Trump supporters lie to themselves, and sometimes others, because they want Trump.
Shame on them, and ESPECIALLY shame on Trump, for his dirty politics.
Instead of talking about Obama’s gun grab, and the rest, we are taling about a NONissue.
However, I think it’s helping Cruz. Most people can see through the crapola.