Revisiting Minor v. Happersett

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 17 Jul 2023 | Joseph DeMaio

[DiogenesLamp]

Ok, so now you agree that Obama was eligible to be President!

I do not dispute that "the Law" and the Judges who run it are @$$es who do not care what the truth is, and in their idiot liar brains, they will declare him eligible, but this is a very different thing from it being true.

You are no longer a tw0-citizen parent Birther!

I have never been a "two-citizen parent birther." I have *always* said that the nationality of the mother has always been irrelevant, and that only the father could pass on citizenship until Congress made a law granting that privilege to women. (Which makes it a form of naturalization.)

The woman was always naturalized upon marriage in the United States, so her nationality never mattered in this discussion.

From this point forward, just let everyone know that you agree that WKA has defined NBC...

And here you go with the strawman again.

Many court decisions that I disagree with, too.

I only disagree with the wrong ones. They occasionally get one right in the manner that a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn.

[DiogenesLamp]

So when the adopted son was deemed, adjudged and taken to be the son of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he did not become a real son.

You are just asking the same question again. To save time debating the meaning of "son", I will say again, *NO*. He didn't become a real son anymore than Pinocchio became a real boy.

When an alien was deemed, adjudged and taken to be a free Citizen of the Commonwealth, he became a real citizen.

A real naturalized citizen, just as a boy would be a real adopted son.

When the alien became naturalized, he became entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens/subjects of Massachusetts.

And so long as they don't have a law that specifies he has to actually *BE* a natural citizen, he's gold!

So far as I know, Massachusetts never had such a law, but our Constitution does have such a law.

[woodpusher]

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/journal/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

Judgment and Decision Making. Vol. Id. No. 6. November 21) 15. pp. 549-563

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Gordon Pennycook* James Allan Cheyne† Nathaniel Barr‡ Derek J. Koehler† Jonathan A. Fugelsang†

Abstract

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingen­uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we locus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena". Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull­shit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief. Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g.. "A wet person does not fear the rain") or mundane (e.g., "Newborn babies require constant attention") statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our re­sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

[Penelope Dreadful]

What is apparent, is that you know what the Law is, and if you go around telling people that something else is the Law, then you are simply lying to them.

Honest person: The law requires us to have a valid driver’s license. I think the Law is wrong, and should be changed. We should not have to have a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle.

Dishonest person: The Law does not require us to have a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle. (While knowing better)

Delusional Crazy Person: The Law does not require us to have a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle. (While not knowing better)

You can only be one of those three things.