... has nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen" whatsoever;
James Monroe, James Madison
...said no such thing;
Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Washington,
...quoted Vattel, but not in regard to citizenship;
Dr. David Ramsey
...was no authority on citizenship, as shown by the fact his claims regarding citizenship were voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, led by Madison;
Chief Justice Waite
...was quoted by the US Supreme Court as having NOT been committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from being born citizens;
The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808
...said absolutely no such thing;
George Washington
...who never stated citizen parents were required, and was a dual citizen with France WHILE serving as President;
John Adams
...who likewise never said any such thing;
Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment,
...who have been egregiously misquoted, who never intended to exclude anyone but Indians and the historical exceptions from being born citizens, and who stated in the US Senate that the only people (other than Indians) born on US soil who weren't citizens were the historical exceptions (e.g., the children of ambassadors)
...and who also equated "born a citizen" with "natural born citizen;"
and a whole lot more people besides.
...like Herb Titus, who gives his opinion without citing any authority at all.
I believe it's safe to say that you really have no idea how many people are supporting "my" assertion.
Highball may or may not, but I have a good idea.
We have David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1.
We have Samuel Roberts, and obscure judge from Pennsylvania, who presided over several counties, and who is directly contradicted by far more authoritative sources.
We have Alexander Porter Morse, who seems to contradict himself, and in one part of his book seems to clearly contradict your claims.
We have one of the Justices in the awful Dred Scott case, although he wasn't citing Vattel to say that children of non-citizens were not natural born citizens; he was citing Vattel to establish that Mr. Scott was "property" and not a "person," and another Justice on the Court clearly contradicted the birther claim.
And of course we have a bunch of modern birthers, post 2008.
There MIGHT be a few more, but in the whole of American history, that's at least getting pretty close to the entire list of people of any note who really, truly did claim what DL says is the gospel truth.
And the short list is contradicted by every OTHER authority in US history. James Madison, William Rawle, Zephaniah Swift, St. George Tucker, those who knew and worked with the Founding Fathers, every early translator and commentator who had anything to say on the subject of Presidential eligibility, an HONEST reading of the debates in Congress after the US Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, authors of hundreds of textbooks and other commentaries on the Constitution throughout history, more recent Justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor, genuine conservative authorities such as the Heritage Foundation, National Review, Mark Levin, on and on and on the list goes.
Says you. The founders were well read for the times. I've seen them quote Aristotle. Have no doubt he was influential on their thinking. You seem to forget, at this time in history EVERY nation but England used the Jus Sanguinus rule, and throughout history as well.
...said no such thing;
Again, says you. The Evidence says otherwise. You just don't like it, so you refuse to accept it.
...quoted Vattel, but not in regard to citizenship;
That is a lie with which you attempt to deflect the truth. Both Justice Marshall AND Justice Washington specifically quote Vattel on Citizenship. Justice Marshall goes so far as to say that Vattel is the BEST authority on the subject.
...was no authority on citizenship, as shown by the fact his claims regarding citizenship were voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, led by Madison;
And this is misstating the case. The issue wasn't whether or not Mr. Smith was a citizen, the issue was whether or not Mr. Smith had been a citizen for the required number of years to serve as a representative. Ramsey had argued that Smith had been in England during the Revolution, and remained a British Citizen until he came back.
One of a diminishing community of colonials in exile, Smith repeatedly postponed returning to South Carolina. His failure to appear to take a mandated oath of allegiance to the state, his older brother's Loyalist ties, and his own implicit indifference to the course of the Revolution seriously imperiled his status at home. After a full year of delays that included a shipwreck off the coast of England, he arrived in Charleston in November 1783. Smith relied on influential family connections to overcome the serious social and political liability of having remained in England throughout the war....
Two days before the polls opened on 24 November, Ramsay publicly disputed Smith's eligibility under the Constitution's seven year citizenship requirement.
Chief Justice Waite
...was quoted by the US Supreme Court as having NOT been committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from being born citizens;
Here you go again, attempting to obfuscate what he said. What he said was that there was no doubt whatsoever that people who were born here to citizen parents are "natural born citizens", but there were doubts about people who were simply born here. He also said that the 14th amendment did not create any natural born citizens.
The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808
...said absolutely no such thing;
They most certainly did. It was THEIR WORK which Samuel Roberts utilized to write his book, and he gives them credit in the book for having compiled the statutes which were in force in Pennsylvania. The fact that they intentionally left out that British Common law statute you so dearly love was INTENTIONAL!
...who never stated citizen parents were required, and was a dual citizen with France WHILE serving as President;
Every time you repeat that "Washington and Jefferson were dual citizens" crap, I think to myself "this man is a F***** idiot, and not worth arguing with. Why you seem to think that means something is utterly beyond me.
Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment,
...who have been egregiously misquoted,
And this part is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. They have been egregiously misquoted by YOU! You intentionally LIED and I use that word with careful aforethought, YOU LIED about what John Bingham said. You did so intentionally, and with specific knowledge that what you were saying was a lie.
John Bingham explicitly explained his meaning when he said:
All other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens
So the question remains, Why do you lie about this? Why do you continue to misrepresent what these men said and intended? That you continue to lie about this ought to tell people that nothing you say can be trusted. You have your own reasons for wanting to claim what you are arguing, but telling the truth is not one of them.
...like Herb Titus, who gives his opinion without citing any authority at all.
You mean constitutional law professor Dr. Herb Titus? Or Dr. Rice, President of Notre Dame? Or all the many others as well?
We have David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1.
More proof that you are not only a liar, but an idiot. You keep thinking that truth is the product of a vote.(Which you even misstate what the vote was about.) Again, you are expressing the "Argumentum ad numerum" otherwise known as "Argumentum ad populum."
We have Samuel Roberts, and obscure judge from Pennsylvania, who presided over several counties, and who is directly contradicted by far more authoritative sources.
Trained by William Lewis, a Constitutional Delegate. (And someone who Worked Opposite Rawle in many cases.) Roberts' book simply expounds on the conclusions of the Pennsylvania Supreme court. It was a widely used and highly regarded legal text in Pennsylvania, and so popular that they reprinted it again in 1847. Were it wrong, surely someone would have pointed it out in the intervening 30 years.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your crap. It's the same crap you always sling. A point by point refutation is wasted on you, because you are known to lie to make your points, and you will certainly ignore any valid criticism of your silly arguments.
It is YOU who has very little to work with. Other than subsequent court decisions far removed from the actual people who would know what they are talking about, you've got almost nothing.
Not only that, it is YOUR idiot interpretation that has given us the obvious absurdity of Anchor babies and "birth tourists." Once again, your argument requires us to believe the founders were morons. No, the founders were geniuses, it is you people who distort their intentions that are the morons.