From YOU? Not even on my worst day.
-----
You will still go on believing that the Constitution talks about Vattel even though I have darn good evidence that it doesn't.
You have 'shown' NOTHING. You have presented no EVIDENCE.
I, however have shown offical government records to support MY position.
I have scrolled back through your posts. All YOU have done is try to brow-beat everyone into agreement using nothing more substantial than your OWN WORDS.
-----
After all, that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it?
Oh, you do love trying to put words in people's mouths, don't you there, champ.
The only people who have doubts about where I stand are the ones who deal mainly in vagaries in the first place.
Like you.
Do I have your agreement that if those six points I made are correct, then it only makes sense that the references in the Constitution are not to Vattel, but to the other author I mention?
It's really not that hard. It seems a compelling case to me. Does it not seem a compelling case to you?
Do I need to go over those six points again?
It seems to me that this should be very, very easy to agree to. And yet you seem to refuse. Why?
As soon as you agree that you are committed to the evidence, rather than committed to necessarily clinging to what you so desperately seem to want to believe, then I will bring forth that evidence.