Reading at least one of the pointers left by an Obot revealed that he/she was using two or more Free Republic identies. That too is encouraging. Seeing Harlan roll out the Connecticut law, the old Smith case, and then refer you to his web site means you are making progress. His web site is a glossary of the more obscure wild goose chases used by Obots over the past three years. And you know you are making progress when one of their talking points is to claim that none of these questions were asked before the election.
Of course Commander Kerchner had sent dozens of registered letters to legislators during 2008, both to Democrats and Republicans, not one of which was answered. The fix was in, and the Obama team had been working, probably for years, to prepare for their “coup”. Even the expertly Alinsky’d Orly Taitz stated clearly in her National Pres Club appearance in December 2008, that nothing could change Obama’s birth to an alien which rendered him defacto ineligible. Her legal experience with was fraud. Knowing that she wasn't equipped to argue constitutional law, she went after what she had seen lots of in the real estate business, the trail of identity obfuscation. Obama is the front man for a thoroughly professional “con job” to further ends about which we can only guess. My guess is that it is about money, though money and power are hard to separate.
When someone has the background, and time, to confront each stab of misdirection with an historical correction, it is like reading comments to a peer reviewed thesis or scientific paper when I'm not expert in the subject matter. I learn more from the comments of experts, like Diogenes and rxsid and ... than from reading the original, but flawed, paper. Thanks Diogenes. I had already read most of the sources cited by the “true conservative” because he/she or his associates have relied upon them for several years.
For someone whose field is not the law, the clarity of Minor v. Happersett, Marshall, Hughes (and Breckenridge Long who showed Hughes that we haven't forgotten our common law, and Bingham, along with the remarkable scrubbing of Minor citations at Justia, and of the final Binney document that Gray used in his intentional misdirection, show what they are concerned with.
Having read James Wilson's devastating critique of English Common Law I wonder why a man known for his grasp of history like Justice Gray would suggest that our framers really meant that our Constitution wanted its citizens to be subjugated to any authority, let alone to the unwritten law of England, which deemed a written Constitution too restrictive and unnecessary, given that the first charter of the British legal system was protect the Monarch (the Magna Charta was an historical artifact).
It seems more likely that Gray was protecting himself in case Chester Arthur's ineligibility were to be discovered (which didn't happen until 2008 when Leo Donofrio’s careful research discovered the truth, not even detected by the biographer in possession of the few remaining Arthur documents). As the questions about "Birthright citizenship" become more and more important, the inconsistencies in Justice Gray's decision and his reliance upon at least one major misquoatation by Justice Story, and Binney's amazing mistakes, Justice Gray will be examined more carefully. As it is, Gray created a "penumbra" which has had enormous consequences related to anchor babies which appear not to be supported by positive law.
Dr. David Ramsay differentiated subjects from citizens so concisely that it is clear why someone interested in clouding the issue would avoid his Dissertation on Citizenship. “Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens.” Ramsay, of course, was our first Congressional Historian. Ramsay was writing in 1789, when the only class of citizenship defined by our Constitution was natural born citizenship, the fact upon which the Minor decision depended, since it made Elizabeth Minor, born to citizen parents on our soil, the only class of citizen defined by the Constitution before 1868, not by a state, a citizen also.