No you won't, you'll ignore them, gloss over them, lie about them, but the one thing you certainly WON'T DO, is to "correct" them.
Why did we pass the 14th amendment Jeff?
There are still some things I know biographically about Rawle that I've never even gotten around to writing about. He was an even better source than I've even written about.
Really? Did you find out he was a SECRET delegate to the Convention? Or perhaps he was a SECRET member of one of the Ratifying legislatures? Pray tell us, where did Rawle get his inside information as to the intentions of the Legislators who debated article II?
Just what source of Information was Rawle privy to which makes him a BETTER source than ever?
As far as being someone's pet, even someone of your limited intelligence and defective memory should remember that I haven't been frequenting these birther (now, I will use the term pejoratively) threads, and I hadn't realized that Jeff Winston had gotten your goat [pun intended].
Basically, it appears that you wish to drive folks off this thread, on the basis of your disagreement with them. A disagreement that you can't be bothered to detail. It's always: "I've done this before," or "I've done this many times," or "Everyone is a liar but me."
Seriously, it's an indication of a very, very small mind.
Really, Jeff?
#295
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
----
First. Tucker did not ‘equate’ native born with natural born. Read it again-
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
It’s talking about ALL the people inside the States, Jeff. BOTH natural born citizens AND aliens inhabited the States.
To continue
natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it
Remember, these people are ALL inside the State! Natural borns already have an ALLIGENCE to the State because of their parents, so they are born 'inside' of it.......and despite being inside the physical location of the State AT BIRTH, aliens are STILL born 'outside' of it.
---
BTW – You messed up on this part too-
approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Nowhere does Tucker ‘approvingly quote’ anyone else in this work. Until you can point it out to me, that is an outright falsehood.
Down from your quote, Tucker continues:
(snip)
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.
Here’s the source you practically always fail to provide, Jeff…… for those aren’t looking for your twisted version of the ‘truth’..