Sure as hell doesn't make it false, either.
I say the sun rises in the east. Nobody objects to the claim.
Your point is that the fact that no one objects doesn't make it true.
Well, that's true. But the fact that no one objects sure as hell doesn't make the statement false.
For that, you need some EVIDENCE to show that the statement is false.
And this is exactly what you lack. Any real and credible evidence to prove the bullshit birther claim.
You say the Founding Fathers defined "natural born citizen" as "born on US soil of two citizen parents."
You've produced absolutely no credible evidence that's the case.
And when others produce credible evidence that that's NOT the case - and a LOT OF IT - you whine that the opinions of lawyers and court and close associates of the Founding Fathers, and of the Framers themselves, don't matter.
You're full of shit. And it's obvious to anyone who has half a brain who has been following the issue.
It proves it neither true nor false, it is irrelevant, and that is why it is a FALLACY. The truth is not determined by consensus or lack thereof.
Jeff: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... .
.
And this is exactly what you lack. Any real and credible evidence to prove the bullshit birther claim.
Jeff had Previously wrote:Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit.
Jeff quoting John Marshall:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
Like you would know the truth if it crawled up your @$$.