Your inane opinion certainly does not stop you from repeatedly citing court opinions, however irrelevant they may be, for example Minor v. Happersett.I was wondering when you would get to that. If you will notice, You cited Minor v. Happersett, and *I* pointed out the court acknowledges "authorities" which do not agree, meaning they are aware of "authorities" that take my position.
If it helps, the name of the thread is "Revisiting Minor v. Happersett". It is revisiting an irrelevant case yet again. And you repeatedly cite court opinions that you make believe you have read for some reason. The insanity runs deep.
In my example, the court is being cited as a witness, not as a court.
You cited courts as a witness at the Constitutional Convention. That is back before there was a Judicial branch or federal courts. The Supreme Court and the Federal court system was created by Congress via the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The other aspect of this is that *YOU* and others believe in the infallibility of the courts whether I do or not, so you should accept arguments based on courts even though I reject them. (Unless they are in the capacity of witness.)
The court can be wrong and make a mistake. Even their mistakes make law, whereas your drooling insanities do not. The courts are empowered to decide cases and controversies, and you are empowered by the First Amendment to talk on and on insanely.
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.I don't care.
That you do not care does not change the correctness of what I stated.
Opinions over a century away from the event are irrelevant,
That's just insane crap and you know it.
And both cases are fooling with that 14th amendment nonsense, which I regard as illegitimately ratified.
And nobody gives a crap about your opinion that the 14th Amendment was illegitimately ratified. It was certified as ratified a century and a half ago. That is not subject to judicial review. It's here to stay until another constitutional amendment changes it.
I cited John Marshall as a witness to the doings surrounding the Constitutional convention. He assisted in getting the Constitution ratified in Virginia. His opinion is relevant as a witness.
The Minor court's opinion is relevant to the fact of the existence of "authorities" that take my position. I do not cite them as having any first hand knowledge of the doings at the constitutional convention.
That you do not care does not change the correctness of what I stated.
Right back atcha buddy!
Opinions over a century away from the event are irrelevant,
That's just insane crap and you know it.
These opinions are irrelevant to truth, but not irrelevant to how power gets used in the present.
But my interest is in what is factual, not that a court has an opinion.
And nobody gives a crap about your opinion that the 14th Amendment was illegitimately ratified. It was certified as ratified a century and a half ago.
This was a point I wanted you to clarify for me. I will take this initial statement as your tentative position, but I will wait for you to answer my other message on this topic before I regard it as fixed in your mind.
Vichy governments do not represent consent of the governed.