The other book that you produced a page from is on British Statutes (not common law) and your Page 26 is specifically under the heading on page 22 of "7 Anne Chap. 5. A.D. 1708 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants."You can get rid of all those judges you cited. They have nothing to do with the page 26 you exhibited. The page you exhibited was written by the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania who was never a justice of the supreme court of anywhere, and not by anyone else.
- - - - -
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159
159 posted on 07/25/2023 3:40:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
- - - - -
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168
168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful
- - - - -
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169
169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher
No I wasn't. I just don't consider the first page of the book as significant as you and she appear to do. It's still the report from the Judges of the Supreme court, and it still says what it says.
You can get rid of all those judges you cited.
No, I think i'll keep them. They allowed their report to be cited as the source of the information, and they had sufficient power to make their displeasure known if they didn't agree, and the fact that they chose not to do so indicates they agreed with the book.
You are quibbling about trivial stuff because you cannot address the substance which clearly states our ideas of Natural Born Citizen descend from Vattel.
And that's why you try to bite this evidence around the edges instead of refuting it with better evidence, which you don't have.