[jamese777]

“This is a poor argument. Whether the Justices’ opinion has more legal weight than mine doesn’t prove that my opinion is wrong, nor was the amount of legal weight being disputed.”

---

I see, so you have no interest in whether there is an adjudication of the issue of whether Barack Obama is a legitimate president or not as long as you feel that you are right. Interesting.

---

“You said I failed to understand that the court stipulated Obama was born in Honolulu, yet you’ve failed to show any such stipulation in anything you’ve quoted. Can I expect a retraction??”

By arguing the “two American born parents are required to be natural born” argument and not the “Obama was not born in the US” argument, the plaintiffs were stipulating to Obama being born in Hawaii. The plaintiffs even used the factcheck.org article on Obama’s COLB as was mentioned in the Justices’ decision.

[edge919]

I see, so you have no interest in whether there is an adjudication of the issue of whether Barack Obama is a legitimate president or not as long as you feel that you are right. Interesting.

I supported my reasoning and showed where this particular court got it wrong and undermined their own reasoning by failing to show precedent for anyone being declared a natural born decision. It was moot to the court's real action as we already discussed anyway, which was basically to uphold a motion to dismiss. What they did was akin to throwing a sucker punch after ringing the bell to end a fight.

By arguing the “two American born parents are required to be natural born” argument and not the “Obama was not born in the US” argument, the plaintiffs were stipulating to Obama being born in Hawaii. The plaintiffs even used the factcheck.org article on Obama’s COLB as was mentioned in the Justices’ decision.

Right, so it still wasn't the court who made this stipulation as you claimed earlier. Thus, I'm still waiting for your retraction.