Replies

Two things: if he's a liar, then why the difficulty in refuting the lies? And, if your typical "birther" (only using the term for lack of a better one) cannot meet citations with citations, and instead yammers about "lies" and "agendas," then birthers are in sorry shape indeed.

You must be new here. After the first few hundred times we matched citations, it became apparent that it was a waste of time. We realized that it doesn't matter what you show him, he'll just ignore it and keep on spouting his crap.

This is the Kook world according to Jeff: "American Citizenship law is based on BRITISH MONARCHY LAW of SUBJECTUDE!"

Here it is explained succinctly by Sir Michael Foster.

"Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

Yeah, the idiot thinks American laws are based on THAT type of "Natural born" law. That it is a complete contradiction to American Independence is simply beyond his grasp.

But if you really want a citation, how about this one?

It comes from this book.

Jeff will say that it is NOT the opinion of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, it is the work of just one obscure no nothing judge from some backwater in rural Pennsylvania.

Jeff is a liar and a fool.

Jeff will say that it is NOT the opinion of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, it is the work of just one obscure no nothing judge from some backwater in rural Pennsylvania.

That's because it isn't the opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Anyone can click through to the book, read it, and see that that's the case.

Roberts wrote ABOUT the set of English statutes that the PA Supreme Court had identified as being still in force in the State. He conveniently included a copy of those statutes in his book, creating a reference work where lawyers could look up those statutes.

He also included his own commentary. And I believe a later version of his work included the report by the PA Supreme Court that he based his book on.

The claims is the same thing as saying that just because I wrote a book on the Constitution and gave my opinions in it, whatever opinions I gave are the word of the Framers themselves.