[sanswork]

You said it would be too much work to go through state by state but you still make strong assertions in you're the three points above. You are speaking from ignorance and declaring things in multiple places and your excuse is that you believe these things and it would be too much work to find the truth. That is the problem.

[pfannkuchen]

You are twisting my words, or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. Getting morally angry while reading can have that effect, I suppose.

I asserted that a, b and c are true. I am 100% sure about that. I have not asserted anything beyond those in this thread (or elsewhere). If you can rebut a, b, or c I would be very interested, since I prefer to become more right over time.

In order to make a stronger claim than I am making, I would need to do more work. Where that work isn't "looking things up on the internet", it's "performing professional level legal analysis".

[jki275]

You've accurately covered the facts I think.

Beyond that, as you say, would require legal analysis and courts, and there has been a lot of hand wringing and not much legal analysis and the courts have mostly ignored the issue.