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.
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.
You contradict yourself with your very own words, and are too STUPID to realize it.
I've actually looked through the Statutes the Pennsylvania Supreme court Identified, and they DON'T include the statute which makes one a subject from having been born on English soil.
The ACTUAL report from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does NOT include the English version of "natural born subject." It doesn't included it because we Jettisoned it when we formed our own nation, but some ignorant and deliberately deceitful people such as Rawle, mislead others that we were following English law.