Still trotting out your Bayard claim?
Bayard is contrary to law and your claims are overstatements, which you have been shown several times, recently in this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054477/posts?page=77#77
Exaggeration is one thing, repeatedly posting the same falsehood and exaggeration is deliberate deception, i.e. lying.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054477/posts?page=77#77
Exaggeration is one thing, repeatedly posting the same falsehood and exaggeration is deliberate deception, i.e. lying.
I would've thought you were a better man than to engage in the ad hominem attacks.
At worst, it's a difference of opinion.
And as you well know, it isn't just James Bayard who holds the same opinion I do. His book was reviewed - and this is documented - by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and other "distinguished jurists" in the year 1833.
Which was a hell of a lot closer to 1787 than 2013 is.
The fact is, there isn't the slightest indication that ANY of these legal experts of the early United States - ALL OF WHOM KNEW THE FOUNDING GENERATION PERSONALLY - agree with your take on the matter.
That being the case, why do you continue to cling stubbornly to what is obviously a stupid-@$$ed position, and call those of us who AGREE WITH AMERICA'S EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS "liars?"
That's how I see it too. Jeff has a bad habit of deliberately deceiving people regarding things which have been disproven. Once is an accident. A few times is sloppy. Over and over and over and over and over again? Deliberate LYING.