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 I do not cite them as having any first hand knowledge of the doings at the constitutional convention.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.
Vichy governments do not represent consent of the governed.
I'm with whatever Bogart said about the Vichy government.