And why wouldn't I be? Gray, after all, was in alignment with the 39th Congress. As shown (Post 406, above), Gray's view of the law is in accord with the "existing law" as expressed by Sens. Howard and Trumbull. And Gray was also very much in accord with the view of Cong. Wilson, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, who, like Gray, cites to Blackstone, James Kent, William Rawle, State v. Maneul, etc). (And, no, Sen. Bingham, was there when Wilson reported, wasn't saying anything differently). And, as shown, Gray was in alignment with writers stretching back further to Tucker (1803) and Swift (1795).
Of course, if one truncates statements by the Congressmen, like, for example, trying to make Wilson looks to be supporting your view by cutting out the parts where he cites to Blackstone and Rawle, and then trying to hide that by omitting the Cong. Globe session and page number, then you can try to argue Gray was wrong. But that sort of rank intellectual dishonesty won't fly.
Yes, as I stated before, I have little doubt that you fully agree with Gray's view of the law.
You and Gray are twin minds who think exactly alike. If you were contemporaries, you would finish each other's sentences. You are soul mates, separated in time.
Why, I bet you think Gray is the last word on what the law ought to be, and i'm sure you believe his legal opinions ought to be completely embraced by our government.
If it weren't for the hilarity you provide, I wouldn't see any use for you at all.