[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

some other views from people much smarter than me which isn't hard

"I think it's kind of a lunatic fringe argument," said Margaret Stock, an attorney at the Cascadia Cross-Border Law Group in Anchorage, Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

It is absurd to call serious scholars and "experts" a "lunatic fringe" because they bring up valid points which have not ultimately been struck down by SCOTUS. And do you have documentation that this Margaret Stock is any more sane than the legal scholars she tries to discredit with a vile, unsubstantiated characterization? If not, you are as vile as she is by presenting her opinion as a valid view.

Trump's proposal seems to rely on the work of a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars who argue the 14th Amendment has long been misread.

This would be an opinion that they are legal scholars not a lunatic fringe.

"This is about getting the base worked up before the midterms," Hamlin said. "He may not ever even issue the executive order that he floated in the Axios interview."

Hamlin, whoever he is, opines about the midterms and what Trump may not do. And you find that interesting. Goody.

"You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan said Tuesday

I take it from this that you find Ryan to be a reputable source. One whom you tend to agree with. Interesting.

Trump may have a lawyer who is telling him the 14th Amendment means something else, but that lawyer is like a unicorn," said Rebecca Hamlin, a professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Ahh . . . Hamlin again. Turns out Hamlin is not a he as I mistakenly denoted above (unless "he" identifies as he). This time you find interesting that she/(he?) likens Trump's phantom lawyer to a unicorn. Goody for you again. Or maybe your being vile again as with the above Stock person.

But but you tube guy

Well, the you tube guy presented a whole lot of actual detail. But I understand. It is more convenient to quote interesting sounding and pointless punch lines than delving into rational discussion about what the you tube guy said.