“Rather than say “we outnumber you, ergo we are correct” (a variation of “might makes right.) why don’t you explain why their argument is valid?”
___
Oh, that’s a simple one. Haven’t you been reading what I’ve been posting?
I haven’t said anything remotely resembling “we are correct,” nor have I claimed that their argument was valid. I haven’t once taken the position that “facts are decided by consensus.” You’re simply setting up straw men, and you’re not going to succeed in getting me to defend points of view that I’ve never expressed.
I’ve simply said that that the judges’ rulings represent the current state of the law, and nothing you’ve said seems to counter that in any way whatsoever.
Yes you have, every bit of it is implied by your context. What other conclusion can be drawn from your naming off how many people agree with a position?
You’re simply setting up straw men, and you’re not going to succeed in getting me to defend points of view that I’ve never expressed.
You've expressed them. Now that you realize how indefensible they are, you are attempting to distance yourself from them.
I’ve simply said that that the judges’ rulings represent the current state of the law, and nothing you’ve said seems to counter that in any way whatsoever.
It represents the unconsidered opinion of a Judge parroting precedent in absence of a weighing of evidence. The law is quite clear to those who know how to read. You keep trying to equate what is the "law" as being the same as what is a judge's opinion.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment. (The basis for the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and without which it wouldn't exist) and it is quite clear that they had no intention of regarding anyone born under the 14th amendment as a "natural born citizen".
Their entire purpose was to grant former slaves the right to be a citizen under the only legal theory by which they could do so without specifically referring to their former status as slaves. They could NOT appeal to jus sanguinus because former slaves could not claim jus sanguinus.
It has been dishonest in the extreme for those of your mindset to equate an amendment to grant freed slaves citizenship as repealing the article II requirements that the President be a natural citizen. Former slaves were NOT natural citizens, they were "naturalized" (adopted) by the force of the 14th amendment.