[CpnHook]

As to the other poster you mentioned, he needs no help from me. He has not only an impressive command of the facts --

"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.

[Fantasywriter]

‘He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’

Excuse me, but you DO want to see Ted Cruz elected this next go round, if the Good Lord delays His coming...right?

[AmericanVictory]

What is it that you say was the view of St. George Tucker on the point and where did he say what you assert he said?

[DiogenesLamp]

When you finally say something about John Marshall

and Bushrod Washington,

(BOTH members of the Ratifying convention, BOTH Supreme Court Justices) then I *MIGHT* bother to bitchslap you down about Kent, (Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ) Tucker, (Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ) and Swift, (Also Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ).

Perhaps someday you will grasp the significance of Provenance. You are an idiot and I have no respect for you.