Jeff, why are you still beating the Bayard drum? Particularly since - You KNOW Bayard's writing was not intended for legal purposes , was a historical book for use in 'the education of youths'I'm not sure what "legal purposes" you want an Exposition of the Constitution of the United States to serve.
As far as the "education of youths" goes, yes, it was used in our colleges and seminaries, and Bayard was pleased that it was.
The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.
So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not. Instead, you try to discredit the evidence, even when it stands on the firm ground of having been approved by the most expert authorities of the early United States.
“The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.”
As has been pointed out to you many times, this is inaccurate. With the exception of Marshall there is no evidence that any of them read Bayard’s book. They approved the planned purpose and organization of the book.
Once again you are engaging in puffery.
I'm not sure what "legal purposes" you want an Exposition of the Constitution of the United States to serve. None. It's your source and you're the one trying to act as if a schoolbook had some meaning in law, not me.
-----
The question is whether it was accurate. The Great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and the famous Chancellor James Kent, all of whom were among the absolute top legal authorities in the United States, as well as other distinguished legal experts, all attested that it was.
No, Jeff, they did not.
Dane was 'flattered by their notice', so they had aknowledged the existence of the book.
They communicated to him 'their approbation of the plan of the work', so they thought it was a good idea.
They also approved 'the manner of its execution'', so they thought it was well organized and
expressed 'their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended', which was a book of history for schools.
So, no Jeff, there is nothing in your source to show they verified, agreed or even READ the book, much less condoned every word printed in the book OR that they felt the definition it contained had anything to do with current law.
------
So once again you're doing what birthers do. You have your pet theory, and when the evidence completely and flatly contradicts it, do you say, "Gee, I might be wrong?" No, of course not.
Oh, yes, I forgot your childish tactics. You know, the one you fall back on when squawking 'BIRTHER" or telling someone they're delusional or insane doesn't work.
Jeff's rule of constitutional debate is:
I'm right because I say I am!
LOL! How pathetic.