Does it bother you that no one else in the legal profession shares your views?
I know you have cherry picked enough out of context words from over the centuries to stitch together what you consider legal justification but yet the legal system seems to thing differently about it.
If it was so clear cut, then at least some of those birther law suites would have succeeded. If Supreme Court precedent is so clear cut then Chief Justice Roberts would not have sworn in Obama.
That is your problem in a nut shell - the real would outside of the internet is indifferent to you and you legal theories.
Well, first of all, you are wrong about that as I have pointed out before, and secondly, I find it highly likely that a system which could bring us decisions like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, etc. can only be assumed to be defective, so no, it doesn't surprise me at all that any system which could yield such defective decisions doesn't agree with me. It actually reinforces my thinking that I am on the right track.
How about you? Do you enjoy the fact that the legal system agrees with you about Roe v Wade?
I know you have cherry picked enough out of context words from over the centuries to stitch together what you consider legal justification but yet the legal system seems to thing differently about it.
And Roe v Wade.
That is your problem in a nut shell - the real would outside of the internet is indifferent to you and you legal theories.
And Roe v Wade.
This is a logical fallacy (one of many logical fallacies employed by Obots). A supreme court justice does NOT have the individual authority to nullify an electee from taking office. Feel free to cite whichever part of the Constitution you believe supports the idea that a Chief Justice could do this arbitrarily and independently.
I am fairly certain that Chief Justice Roberts, out of fear for his and his families lives, put his hand in the air and said repeat after me......