You're crazy. I absolutely stand by those words! They are exactly right.
Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.
If YOU quote the overwhelmingly voted-down David Ramsay (36 to 1),
Jeff just can't help working an argumentum ad numerum fallacy into his argument.
the infinitely obscure little judge Samuel Roberts,
And the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania! Compiled at the behest of the Entire Pennsylvania State Legislature!
Do you think for one moment that if the book was incorrect that some one of these people would not have stood up and said so? Face it, it was a prominent LAW BOOK in the State of Pennsylvania. It was in such high demand that they had to print a SECOND ADDITION. (1847)
John Marshall opining on a side matter (the degree to which US citizens permanently residing in England should be treated as US citizens, versus the degree to which they should be counted as members of English society...
The Assumption being that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not know what he is talking about when he is discussing a "side matter". (which it was not. It was the very heart of the case. )
- and using a translation of Vattel that doesn't even include the words "natural born citizens"),
A trivial and irrelevant point even if true, which it is not. It has already been demonstrated that in 1785, an American Translator of a Treaty with France translated "Sujet naturels" as "Natural born Subjects."
or some anonymous letter writer to a newspaper, who himself says he's not sure whether he's right or not - why, that's good evidence.
To a Newspaper in Virginia, where the nom de plume "Publius" was well known, and in any case, the letter accurately represented the position of Ambassador John Armstrong and the Madison Government at that time.
You also left out the Letter from James Monroe explicitly stating that a man born in the US Was NOT an American, but rather an Englishman. You also left out commentary from Bushrod Washington (George's nephew) Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and a whole host of others. You simply don't care about what is true and what is not.
And here is where you take your nonsense to the extreme:
If SOMEONE ELSE quotes James Madison, or an extremely close associate of George Washington, Ben Franklin and several other delegates the Constitutional Convention,
He is talking about British Loyalist and London Trained Lawyer William Rawle who dined in Philadelphia restaurants while the Delegates were working at Independence Hall. Somehow Jeff Conflates the occasional presence of Washington and Franklin in the social company of Rawle, as meaning that RAWLE SUCKING THE KNOWLEDGE OUT OF THEIR BRAINS WITH HIS VULCAN MIND MELD!
Here is an illustration of Rawle's Learning process at work:
You are a F***ing idiot.
Your double standard of evidence, where the flimsiest of evidence supposedly makes your case, and where the strongest and best evidence available is supposedly worthless, is a clear illustration of that fact.
You don't PRESENT any strong evidence! All your arguments keep coming back to Lawyers repeating HEARSAY!!! And then Subsequent Court cites of these same Lawyers!
You have only ONE example of an actual Delegate on your side, and even THAT example is misconstrued as a stark construction, which it is not.