And you're back to your "NUMBERS = TRUTH!" argument. He was most likely voted down because the house perceived him as a sore loser, and didn't really care about his technicality argument.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
GOD! You are SO F***ING STUPID! You are an ignorant, childish wannabe relevant fool, who has not the slightest understanding of logic or reality. You keep putting forth these IDIOT arguments such as "Rawle hung out with these guys, so obviously he knows ever secret of their innermost being." You then add to this brain dead stupidity, the comment that "Washington tried to make him Attorney General" as if that is proof that he has specific knowledge of the Delegates intent, rather than being just a general acknowledgement of his capabilities. I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of your crap. Two fallacies in a row is enough idiocy for me to deal with this morning.
Your arguments pretty much consist of these fallacies.
"I have a WHOLE FLOCK of Lawyer Lawbirds" who agree with me, and because there are so MANY of them, they must be correct!"
"The Leader of the Flock (William Rawle) MUST be correct, because the Shadow of Washington and Franklin once fell across him!"
Again, you are just too stupid for me to put up with this morning.
We are dealing with two things here: History, and law. But mostly, law.
The communication of history relies on the words of reliable witnesses, and the compilation of what happened by reliable historians.
We call these AUTHORITIES.
And LAW is made up of LEGAL RULES, PRECEDENTS, AND JUDGMENTS.
The legal rules include Constitutions, statutes, and regulations. Mostly they are written, but on some occasions legal rules have historically been unwritten.
Precedents generally result from court cases and judgments.
Judgments mostly come from judges in court cases, but to some degree are expressed by legal opinion.
And legal opinion comes from recognized legal experts or AUTHORITIES.
In the legal realm, it is the opinion of LEGAL AUTHORITIES that matters. Not your stupid little opinion. The opinion of REAL, LEGITIMATE, LEGAL AUTHORITIES. Along with court precedent.
All of the court precedent is against your stupid little claim.
The judgment in Lynch v. Clarke says you're full of it.
The judgment in US v. Wong Kim Ark says you're full of it. (And don't give me "Minor v. Happersett, blah, blah, blah," because there WAS no judgment on the point in Minor v. Happersett - they expressly said they WERE NOT going to examine or decide the question.
The judgment in every case since then says you're full of it.
All of HISTORY is against your stupid little claim. Virtually everyone in history who has ever spoken on the matter, Founding Fathers and those from their generation included, has said we adopted common law definitions of terms in the Constitution and the common law rule for citizenship.
And the testimony of those who were there IS the history.
There is no statutory law in favor of your stupid little claim. Every statutory law in history is consistent with the common law rule that the Supreme Court told us had always been used.
And virtually every genuine LEGAL OPINION and virtually every genuine LEGAL AUTHORITY in history says you're full of it as well.
So what's your argument?
That no statute in history, virtually no historian, virtually no legal authority, and absolutely no court case in history agrees with your theory, and practically every historian and legal authority in history disagrees with you... therefore you must be RIGHT?
How freaking stupid is that?
You really take the cake. Pretty much everything in history and in law says you're completely wrong, and still you insist that you're right. You insist that the combined weight of all of history and law is nothing more than "argumentum ad numerum." (It isn't, but you insist it is.)
So what do you call the fallacy that almost nobody on earth agrees with you, therefore you must be right?
It's so effing stupid I don't think it even has a name.
Because only complete morons would make such an argument in the first place.
If you had the slightest degree of real intelligence, you would realize it's all over. You lost the argument, and now you look like a complete, total, absolute ass.
You made an idiotic and false claim, and you got called on it by people who bothered to find out what the truth actually was.