It is news to me that I’m allegedly trying to restart an argument. Could you clarify the specific argument I am allegedly attempting to restart?
As to the other poster you mentioned, he needs no help from me. He has not only an impressive command of the facts—he sees them from a conservative POV. This is the one thing you have never and will never be able to do.
Thus the problem. The liberal POV is fundamentally flawed, but it’s the only one you can see. So you post garbled ideas such as that Obama could deport US citizens if he wasn’t so poignantly favorable toward them. It’s a twisted, moonbat mess. You really should leave it on your Obot sites, and keep it well off FR.
"Impressive command of the facts?" Hmmm. Let's examine that claim.
1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view, but rather that error on that point started with William Rawle in his 1829 treatise on Constitution law. But, to that I've shown that well prior to Rawle there were writers (Zephaniah Swift (1795), St. George Tucker (1803), and James Kent (1826)) who had already articulated the same view as Rawle. So DL is way off on this point.
2. He claims that anti-Birthers only offer "later day lawyers" to support their view of Article 11 birth citizenship. To that I point out that Swift (1795) and Tucker (1803) can hardly be called "later day writers" when DL is brandishing Samuel Roberts (writing in 1817) as some early authority.
He shows no "impressive command of the facts."
He needs help from somebody.