Replies

As noted many times, Roberts was an obscure judge in charge of several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania.

Trisham, I want you to note how Jeff had earlier said that we had absolutely NO FACTS on our side, but when presented with one, he immediately attempts to dismiss it as trivial or inconsequential, not at all embarrassed by his previous assertion that there were NO FACTS AT ALL.

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest. He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently. Here is the front page of the book from which that quote came.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania. Here is the Act passed by the Pennsylvania legislature ordering the Pennsylvania Supreme court to undertake this task.

Here is the final portion of the letter which those judges sent to the State Legislature of Pennsylvania in which they explained what they had done.

The Book was of extreme importance within the State of Pennsylvania, and was widely used as a reference by all Pennsylvanian courts for decades. It was so popular, they printed a second edition in 1847.

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania. That was the center of the Nation's legal system in 1787, and those Judges of the Supreme court of Pennyslvania were delegates and Representatives.

In addition, Samuel Roberts was trained by William Lewis, who was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature in 1787, and who ought to know very well what was the meaning of the Constitution when it was ratified by Pennsylvania in 1787.

Pennsylvania also included in it's first State Constitution (Ben Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention. ) an acknowledgement that the son of a citizen would automatically be a voter.

I could go on and on about who was who, and who did what in Early Pennsylvania legal history, but the salient point of my response is that Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book, and the nature of it's importance in the most Prominent Legal system in Early US History. Philadelphia WAS the most prominent legal system of the United States at this time in our History.

Jeff first attempts to deny the existence of disputing evidence, and when he can no longer deny, attempts to lie about it's origin and it's scope of importance. Again, Jeff is intellectually dishonest, and though i've demonstrated once more that he is deliberately dishonest, the next time the topic comes up, he'll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

Now it has taken me quite a long time to find all the images and links, but Jeff's lies? They require no effort whatsoever, and that's how he does it. He makes me work to disprove the lies which he tells effortlessly. Jeff has seen this information several times, but he persists in sticking to his propaganda.

Now are you getting a better idea of why a person would get fed up attempting to reason with him?

I’m glad that you both care so strongly about this issue, but I sincerely hope that your future discussions will be a tribute to the patriotism of this site, rather than an embarrassment. At the moment, I am perhaps more envious of the energy with which you pursue this conversation. Perhaps you might consider applying some of that energy to our Freepathon thread? We have some wonderful FReepers there, and it’s for a very good cause.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3039141/posts?page=125

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest.

Sorry, no, I'm not.

He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently.

It wasn't a trivial work - on the contrary, it became well-respected and well used. But it WAS by an otherwise COMPLETELY obscure judge in Pennsylvania. It seems to have been his only important work or otherwise notable accomplishment.

And even as such, it paled in comparison to the importance of works on the Constitution by national experts such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.

Let's make that an accurate statement.

The Book is a compilation of [a fleshing-out of] [the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.]

There is no indication that Roberts' book was done "at the direction of the State Legislature," that it was done at the behest of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or that it had any such official nature whatsoever.

It was simply Roberts' work of sitting down and putting together the text of all the English common-law statutes that the Supreme Court had said were in effect in the State, along with his own personal commentary.

Here are a few of Roberts' comments in the Preface:

Such a selection, accompanied with notes and illustrations, seems to be much desired by the gentlemen of the bar, whose opinions I have had an opportunity of knowing; and might, it is conceived, be useful to all concerned in the administration of justice.

Does that sound like it was done at the behest of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or with their approval? No.

The report which they [the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the professsion, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.

The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice, whatever may be urged on either side; and without otherwise adverting to the circumstance whether such statute be comprised in the report or not, will be solicitious only to form a correct decision.

Roberts PRESUMES that the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would agree with him that their opinions in the report presented to the Legislature doe not rise to the level of a judicial ruling.

If Roberts' report had been done at the behest of the Supreme Court, he wouldn't PRESUME their feelings on that matter. He would KNOW.

And of course, nowhere does it ever say that the PA Supreme Court was behind Roberts' book in any way.

DiogenesLamp spins more bullsh*t:

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania.

Ah. But Roberts was not a "delegate" or "representative from Pennsylvania."

If one wants to go there, who would know better what the Founding Fathers meant than a member of Franklin's Society for Political Inquiries (which was an arm of the central body of Founders), who had served as a consultant to that body of leaders on the topic of immigration, a good personal friend of both Franklin and President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, a man who had national-level legal responsibilities as UNITED STATES District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, who turned down the post of United States Attorney General when it was offered by President George Washington, and who was an important, nationally-recognized legal scholar who wrote one of the most important text books on the Constitution of the United States?

I refer, of course, to William Rawle.

Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book...

No. As I have just shown, it is DIOGENESLAMP who attempts to deceive people about the provenance of Roberts' work, falsely claiming it was written at the behest of, or with the approval of, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Jeff... [wi]ll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

I never claimed the Book was a "nothing." But it is clearly NOT the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

That is a FALSE CLAIM BY DIOGENESLAMP, and it is clearly false. There is no evidence to support it; all the available evidence is against it.

Yes, it REFERS TO a work that was DONE by the Supreme Court. But Roberts' book itself WAS NOT a product of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

So, as I've said: DiogenesLamp's claim is bullsh*t.

PS - apologies for burdening your 4th of July holiday with responses to DiogenesLamp's false claims and accusations.

Even in his attempt to dismiss the fact which he previously claimed we did not have, he is being dishonest.

Sorry, no, I'm not.

He attempts to portray it as a trivial work by an Obscure judge in Pennyslvania, but he leaves out a lot of salient details which color it very differently.

It wasn't a trivial work - on the contrary, it became well-respected and well used. But it WAS by an otherwise COMPLETELY obscure judge in Pennsylvania. It seems to have been his only important work or otherwise notable accomplishment.

And even as such, it paled in comparison to the importance of works on the Constitution by national experts such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.

The Book is a compilation of the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.

Let's make that an accurate statement.

The Book is a compilation of [a fleshing-out of] [the work done by the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the direction of the State Legislature of Pennsylvania.]

There is no indication that Roberts' book was done "at the direction of the State Legislature," that it was done at the behest of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or that it had any such official nature whatsoever.

It was simply Roberts' work of sitting down and putting together the text of all the English common-law statutes that the Supreme Court had said were in effect in the State, along with his own personal commentary.

Here are a few of Roberts' comments in the Preface:

Such a selection, accompanied with notes and illustrations, seems to be much desired by the gentlemen of the bar, whose opinions I have had an opportunity of knowing; and might, it is conceived, be useful to all concerned in the administration of justice.

Does that sound like it was done at the behest of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or with their approval? No.

The report which they [the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the professsion, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.

The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice, whatever may be urged on either side; and without otherwise adverting to the circumstance whether such statute be comprised in the report or not, will be solicitious only to form a correct decision.

Roberts PRESUMES that the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would agree with him that their opinions in the report presented to the Legislature doe not rise to the level of a judicial ruling.

If Roberts' report had been done at the behest of the Supreme Court, he wouldn't PRESUME their feelings on that matter. He would KNOW.

And of course, nowhere does it ever say that the PA Supreme Court was behind Roberts' book in any way.

DiogenesLamp spins more bullsh*t:

Furthermore, I will point out that The Constitution was Written in Philadelphia, which was at that time the Nation's Capitol, and no body of people knew better what was the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen" than did those delegates and representatives from Pennsylvania.

Ah. But Roberts was not a "delegate" or "representative from Pennsylvania."

If one wants to go there, who would know better what the Founding Fathers meant than a member of Franklin's Society for Political Inquiries (which was an arm of the central body of Founders), who had served as a consultant to that body of leaders on the topic of immigration, a good personal friend of both Franklin and President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, a man who had national-level legal responsibilities as UNITED STATES District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, who turned down the post of United States Attorney General when it was offered by President George Washington, and who was an important, nationally-recognized legal scholar who wrote one of the most important text books on the Constitution of the United States?

I refer, of course, to William Rawle.

Jeff Winston Deliberately, and with malicious intent, attempts to deceive people about the Provenance of this book...

No. As I have just shown, it is DIOGENESLAMP who attempts to deceive people about the provenance of Roberts' work, falsely claiming it was written at the behest of, or with the approval of, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Jeff... [wi]ll simply repeat his false claims again. (The Book is a nothing, Samuel Roberts is a nobody, the Book was NOT the work of the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania. The book is NOT evidence.)

I never claimed the Book was a "nothing." But it is clearly NOT the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

That is a FALSE CLAIM BY DIOGENESLAMP, and it is clearly false. There is no evidence to support it; all the available evidence is against it.

Yes, it REFERS TO a work that was DONE by the Supreme Court. But Roberts' book itself WAS NOT a product of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

So, as I've said: DiogenesLamp's claim is bullsh*t.

PS - apologies for burdening your 4th of July holiday with responses to DiogenesLamp's false claims and accusations.