You are right in calling it an “insane” interpretation. Arguing with these people, unless it is just to see how low they will go intellectually, is pointless. It is like having a prolonged debate with a flat-Earther, or a sovereign citizen, about whether you need to get a license tag to drive.
No matter what you say, or what evidence you provide, they are not arguing in good faith, and they will never change their mind. Which, is not uncommon BUT, here the question is simply a legal one, and the WKA Court was very clear.
My BFF says that she has asked them before, why don’t you just admit that the current state of the law means that Obama was eligible, but that the law should be changed. That would be a defensible position, but she says that they would have none of it.
So yep, they are mentally ill people.
It's pointless anyway because you do not argue in good faith. You do not say anything without punctuating it with smears and insults.
Who has time for this sort of crap?
My BFF says that she has asked them before, why don’t you just admit that the current state of the law means that Obama was eligible, but that the law should be changed. That would be a defensible position, but she says that they would have none of it.
Squeeky Fromme? The girl so clueless she didn't know this was the name of one of the Manson Family murders?
Why don't we just agree with her about what she says is the truth, despite evidence to the contrary? I dunno. I guess we are in the 25% of the population that simply won't accept something because people tell us so.
Or because some "authority" tells us so.
The framer's intent for natural born citizen can be divined by looking at what they said and did, not by looking at what judges decades or centuries later said.
We follow the evidence, not smug declarations of certainty, especially from the clown show that is the modern judiciary.