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.
Not defensive in the least, just over it, as far as attempting to convey information to you. Funny you purport yourself to have been manning some rampart since 2008 when your presence on any eligibility thread has been negligible. You know no argument by heart, you've tugged no loose "strands," neither here nor there. You do, however, deserve such an abrupt and crude rejoinder. You are not sincere, you latch onto snippets and launch into some strange soliloquy that has no relation to the comment to which you've purported to respond.
It's tiresome and it's pointless, and so I leave you to your tangential commentary and your very poor understanding of the English common law to which you consistently and constantly defer.