Replies

You presume to be in some position to make demands. You’re actually not in any such position, for the reasons stated upthread. If you were actually interested in learning anything, rather than regurgitating by rote, I might reconsider. I’ve seen no evidence thus far that you are, however, so bite me, if you’ll pardon the colloquialism.

Ho ho, a bit defensive, are we? Ever since BHO II was elected back in November 2008, I've encountered the same thing among birthers over and over again. They know their arguments very well, by heart, but tug at a few loose strands here and there, and pretty soon, they can't do anything except say "bite me." Bart Simpson would've been proud, y'know?

Let's not forget what our discussion was about. You insisted that when Chief Justice Waite wrote of "common law," he was referring to "something other than English" common law. (Could you have been any more vague?) I pressed you on this, and you soon insisted that "There are US legal precedents that occurred prior to Ratification under the Articles of Confederation" and which supported your position.

Well, which cases? You didn't list them then, and you're not listing them now. Maybe they do exist, but until you find them, your argument is weak. Seriously though, "something other than English"? I don't see how that can convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.