Here is another one of your overreaching statements. I know for a fact that you haven't read everything i've had to say on this because I have argued this topic on half a dozen other websites, none of which I recall having seen you.
Given the care you have taken in making such an overreaching claim, why should we take you seriously about what you claim to have read? The Wise man doubts, the fools is certain.
I've read your stuff and the stuff written by just about everyone else out there.
No you haven't. All you are doing here is damaging your credibility.
I've weighed the arguments on both sides. And yours fall flat, again and again.
You went in with that opinion, so it is no surprise you emerge with that opinion.
And the odd thing is, no matter how many times you're shown the falsehoods and flaws, you simply won't give up your falsehood.
You presume to think that you have EVER demonstrated that my argument has a falsehood or flaw about it. That demonstration exists only in your mind. Certainly no one with objectivity is aware of it.
One can quote a very strong and crystal clear authority like Rawle, who was friends both with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and do you listen?
Rawles is not the only authority. He is not even the most knowledgeable authority. I would say that honor belongs to Dr. David Ramsey who was a historian and in the thick of it.
No. Instead, you insult this friend of Washington and Franklin by falsely accusing him of having supported the British during the war.
By clinging with both fists to false doctrine regarding the Constitution, so hard that you will turn on and insult early American experts like Rawle, you are an enemy not only of William Rawle, but also of his friends George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and of the Constitution they gave us.
Now you have turned to hyperbole.
You don't know how extensively I have or have not read.
You went in with that opinion, so it is no surprise you emerge with that opinion.
As I've stated here before, I went in with NO opinion. You seem to have missed that.
You presume to think that you have EVER demonstrated that my argument has a falsehood or flaw about it. That demonstration exists only in your mind. Certainly no one with objectivity is aware of it.
Rawles is not the only authority. He is not even the most knowledgeable authority. I would say that honor belongs to Dr. David Ramsey who was a historian and in the thick of it.
Complete BS.
Rawle was a lawyer and a legal expert who founded the nation's law firm, wrote an extensive and authoritative work ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, was a personal friend of two of our most important Framers, and was present IN PHILADELPHIA during the Constitutional Convention.
In fact, it is hard to imagine a much more authoritative figure.
Ramsay was a HISTORIAN and a MEDICAL DOCTOR. He had no legal training at all. There is no indication that he was especially close to any of our most important Framers such as Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. He was apparently a brother-in-law by marriage to Charles Pinckney, but that's about as close as he got.
In fact, Charleston is getting pretty close to about as far away as you could get from the cities of Philadelphia and New York, where most of the action was happening.
Aside from that, Ramsay's doctrine on citizenship was the obvious and clear product of a self-interested sore-loser campaign in which he was trying to have the guy who beat him for US Representative declared ineligible.
Ramsay's citizenship claims were utterly rejected by his peers, led by none other than James Madison, who said that PLACE OF BIRTH WAS WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES. And Ramsay was voted down, an almost unanimous 36 to 1.
If it is hard to imagine a more authoritative voice than Rawle, it is equally hard to imagine a LESS authoritative one than Ramsay.
Except you, of course. Except for you.
I will say this, though: I do like the tone of the desperation of your attacks against me.