False law. The court NEVER took the legislative history of the citizenship clause into account. They did a prima facie (a non-originalist) reading of the 14th Amendment without consideration of what the writers of it intended.
they made a ruling on what they believe the law says. Until the law is changed to clarify or the court over rules the decision, then that is the law. Period. Full stop.
Just because they haven't ruled yet does not prove I am wrong. LOL!
Talk about faulty logic right there.
you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it proves your opinion on what the law should be is wrong. I am saying it proves that Kamala is a citizenship. The way the law is interpreted today says she is a citizen. She was issued citizenship by the government. So your statement that she is not a citizen is provably wrong. If you want to say that she shouldn't have been given citizenship, then that isn't "wrong", it's just a matter of opinion. But you can't say she doesn't have it.
that's because no one except the Heritage Foundation and a small handful of others have but none have taken the time, effort or money to pursue the matter in the Courts.
I already said that. ". Only a few right wing crackpots say differently." you are describing that no one but the right wing crackpots wants this law changed.
Citing the same dated article doesn't debunk what was just said. As I mentioned above this reply, there has been more follow-up reports and podcasts disclosing more affirming that Kamala is not BLACK.
I'm not going to argue any further about the lies of a right wing loon.
As argued and supported by the legislative history I have cited, among other legal sources, she is not a legitimate citizen.
There, right there is your problem. You said "legitimate citizen". That is the reason you're wrong. You have an opinion that says she should not have been given citizenship. But your statement isn't that she shouldn't have been given citizenship. Your statement is that she is not a citizen. But that is provably false. She is a citizen. You just think she shouldn't be. Your statements seem to acknowledge that she is a citizen, you just think she should not have been given it.
Just because on paper it says she doesn't make it so.
lol that is exactly what it means. That "paper" is the law. The only reason you have citizenship is that paper. She has that paper too. That makes you both citizens (assuming you're american)
Like a law student passing their PhD courses and the bar doesn't mean they are a great or even a good lawyer.
but it does mean they are a lawyer. Just like it means that she is a citizen.
And just because the Court(s) haven't been given an opportunity to take up this legal matter doesn't prove me wrong.
it does actually. The court rules A. You can argue that they should have ruled B. But if you argue that the law is B, you are wrong. It is A until the law is changed or the court overrules the decision.