And you have been SHOWN that NATHAN DANE IS WRONG. What part of NATHAN DANE IS WRONG are you not comprehending? I am completely freakin astonished that once more you claim that "Nathan Dane said so" is some sort of defense. It is not a defense at all, because NATHAN DANE IS WRONG.
Now you can of course say (like the idiot DiogenesLamp says) that Nathan Dane, the distinguished Father of American Jurisprudence, was wrong. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance and arrogance to do it, but you can do so if you like.
It doesn't take arrogance, it takes a single fact which proves it. Here you go again.
For some reason Jeffery is just not comprehending that his Nathan Dane theory *IS* DEFUNCT. The FACTS do not support NATHAN DANE. THE FACTS ARE AGAINST NATHAN DANE. NATHAN DANE IS INCORRECT.
Oh, yeah. Well, Nathan Dane is wrong.
Yes he is. Proven wrong above. Not the only source of this information either. Several other sources are available which proves Nathan Dane wrong about Jefferson having even Honorary French citizenship. Jefferson had NO KIND of French citizenship at all.
William Rawle is wrong.
Yes he is. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court told him so in 1804. They Unanimously voted AGAINST his argument that Slaves became citizens merely by being born in the United States.
James Bayard is wrong.
No, James Bayard is exactly correct. You just misrepresent what he means when he says "born a citizen". James Bayard only recognized one means of being "born a citizen" and it required having a FATHER who was a citizen. His son clarifies his position perfectly.
All those who agreed with James Bayard (including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall) are wrong.
No, John Marshall and Bayard are both correct. They don't agree with you though. You have simply LIED and MISLED people by asserting that they DO Agree with you when they absolutely do not.
Well, the list of the most brilliant legal experts of the early United States,
And here is that F***** lie again. No, the ones who agree with you WEREN'T Brilliant, they were second class ex post facto hearsay lawyers who had no idea what was the truth because they weren't there. Those who were there do not agree with you.
and the list of historical legal experts, and conservative legal foundations, and present-day judges, and Supreme Court Justices,
All mislead by an incorrect interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
who are outshined by the stunning brilliance of a bunch of birthers on the internet (who never attended their first law class) just gets longer and longer and longer, doesn't it?
Brilliance isn't the issue. It's KNOWLEDGE. Those who research something know more about it than those who don't. At this point, law School only serves the purpose of misleading people because it directs them to the rut of Precedent rather than independent thought.
Anyone attending Law School will be pushed into following the Herd by misinterpreting Wong Kim Ark as meaning something beyond what it says.
At what point does it start to occur to you imbeciles... Hey, maybe it's not all the great legal luminaries of American history who are wrong?
When Jeff quotes them. This is because he never accurately conveys their understanding. He simply reads it as though it agrees with him even when it doesn't. This is because Jeff is Deluded and tends to LIE to cover up the fact that his theories don't conform to the evidence.
Hmmm? Might that idea ever occur to you guys? Just a thought.
You don't have thoughts worthy of consideration. You are simply a propaganda bullshit artist who has long since gone past the time where someone should have whipped your @$$.