Citing state court again. Hahahaha
Citing state court again. Hahahaha
Once again, you illustrate the stupidity of your position.
The state court case I cite - Lynch v. Clarke - had to do with NATIONAL citizenship. It was absolutely required that the judge determine what the NATIONAL rule of citizenship was, in order to adjudicate that state case.
And the judge in that same case was cited approvingly by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, who AGREED WITH HIS CONCLUSION.
Under those circumstances, YES, the State court decision is relevant.
YOU, on the other hand, try to cite a SEVERAL-COUNTIES judge, who had no responsibilities whatsoever to adjudicate the national law, and (unlike Sandford) no known reason to, as if he were somehow superior to authorities that were responsible for matters of NATIONAL law.
And the little SEVERAL-COUNTIES judge that you cite made a comment that was COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED by any reference whatsoever to national law, to prior legal precedent, or even to any prior national legal authority.
In other words, it was solely HIS OPINION.
Sandford, on the other hand, analyzed the law and precedent for about 25 fine-print pages - the equivalent of around FIFTY reasonable pages - going back literally HUNDREDS of years into the legal precedents before issuing a ruling.
This is a perfect example of the difference between a reasonable person and a batsh*t birther.
The reasonable person looks at all of the early authorities, sees they are in agreement, and decides they must have known what they were talking about.
The reasonable person looks for the best authority possible on which to base his or her opinion: James Madison? That's a pretty good authority. Alexander Hamilton? That's a pretty good authority. Judge Lewis Sandford, who analyzed the matter for 50 pages, went back hundreds of years into the precedents, was cited by and agreed with by the United States Supreme Court? That's a pretty good authority. William Rawle, who knew Franklin and Washington personally, met with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, was appointed US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, wrote one of the leading works on the Constitution? That's a pretty good authority. Bayard, US District Attorney whose work on the Constitution was warmly approved by Chief Justice John Marshall? Pretty darn good authority.
And then the REASONABLE person goes with what all the best authorities actually said.
The batsh*t birther rejects all of that. "Why, I've got a judge over several counties in Pennsylvania, who didn't actually analyze the matter, but he expressed a contrary opinion, and I like his opinion, so, by G*d, he's the 'best' authority."
It's bullsh*t. It's truckloads of absolute bullsh*t. And you, my friend, are the shoveler.