Jack, you are spewing crap. No one is claiming that Paine’s The Rights of Man is law, or that Vattel’s The Law of Nations is law. We are saying that the Constitution IS law, and we are demanding that it be followed.
And do YOU get this: The Federalist papers and other contemporary sources are routinely used to confirm the Framer’s intent, especially when the drift of language causes people, like you apparently, to impose more modern meanings on words that are not appropriate because they would not have been understood in such a way by the Framers.
You do get THAT, don’t you, PINHEAD.
No, I’m not spewing crap, you and the others pretending that your bizzaro-world reading of the Constitution has any meaning to anyone, other than to yourselves, are the ones spewing crap.
In case you haven’t noticed the Original Intent of the framers has been a source of controversy since approximately the day after the document was signed.
Lately it is just one method among many that our many judges, up to including the Supreme Court, use to interepret the Constitution. There is the “strict constructionist” school, the “textualist” view, the “modern and evolving social norms” view, the “foreign courts influence” view, the “pnumbras and emmenations view” and varitions.
You PINHEADS are not going to carry the day in any court with your argument, because it is far far to narowly focused. All courts take more than just an obscure 18th century text into consideration. While you might discount utterly the votes of 100 million Americans, trust me, SCOTUS will not.
How many Birther cases have they turned down so far? Five? Six?
I’m done talking to you. You and your cohorts are rude and ignorant.