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?"
It is not a matter of opinion, Bayard’s claim is contrary to law. This is a fact that is easily verified.
I point out the fact that you repeatedly post what has been shown to be incorrect. I am not disputing Bayard made the claim, but that the claim itself is inaccurate. Repeatedly posting what is known to be inaccurate and exaggerating the statements of others to make it seem as though they endorse Bayard’s claim is deceitful. What else can it be called?
Jeff Winston citing a James Madison quote:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."Ted Cruz was born in Canada, not the United States.Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3003325/posts?page=23#23
Cruz is naturalized.
And yet NONE OF THEM WERE THE FOUNDING GENERATION! Every time we look at one of those, we don't find any support for your position. All you have is post hoc "hear say" lawyers who have no first hand knowledge of what was debated in convention.
And you keep trumpeting these weak cards as having some significance compared to the much better authorities who WERE ACTUALLY THERE!
You aren't interested in hearing GOOD authorities, because they don't say what you like. You have to scrounge around in the Judicial bargain basement to get the British Centric legal opinion you want.