I know that you haven't read everything I wrote as you alleged, because if you had, I would not constantly be surprising you with stuff you haven't seen before.
As I've stated here before, I went in with NO opinion. You seem to have missed that.
Yes, I get quite well that you are representing yourself as completely objective from the beginning to now. I just don't believe you. You either ignore or are seemingly unaware of the fact that in order for your theory to be correct, (That it was universally understood that birth on the soil was the only requirement) there should be no contrary proof otherwise. The fact that there *IS* contrary proof ought to cause you pause, but it doesn't. You remain as certain of your correctness as any fool which rushes in where Angels fear to tread.
I took FIVE of your arguments at random in succession, and completely destroyed every single one of them, here.
No you didn't you f***** moron, you just mentally masturbated with yourself for several paragraphs, and then acted like the little dog which thinks he chased away a car.
Complete BS.
OMG! I am devastated by your brilliant repartee!
Rawle was a lawyer and a legal expert who founded the nation's law firm, wrote an extensive and authoritative work ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
When everyone who could safely contradict him was probably dead, no doubt.
was a personal friend of two of our most important Framers,
A point already addressed and which proves nothing.
and was present IN PHILADELPHIA during the Constitutional Convention.
As was the Philadelphia gutter trash, but I doubt they had any impact on, or understanding of, the work being done by the Delegates either. You simply put too much faith in absorption by osmosis on the part of Rawle. As I have previously pointed out, Rawle was elsewhere when the rest of the legal minds in America were diligently reading the Vattel blueprint for a nation, for the preceding 23 years. Who knows? Perhaps Vattel induced the Revolution?
Yes, if you want an expert on BRITISH law. Blackstone comes to mind though.
Ramsay was a HISTORIAN and a MEDICAL DOCTOR. He had no legal training at all.
You just throw that stuff out there and hope it sticks? I think you do not understand the nature of a University education from those days. Law was pretty much a staple of any University Education. In any case, the founders were making up the Law of America as they were going, and they were embracing legal doctrines which were contradicted and anathema to British Law.
There is no indication that he was especially close to any of our most important Framers such as Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. He was apparently a brother-in-law by marriage to Charles Pinckney, but that's about as close as he got.
The Man ran congress for God's sake! How much more involved do you need to be with the Constitutional Delegates or the making of law?
From 1782 to 1786 he served in the Continental Congress. In the absence of John Hancock, Ramsay served as chairman of Congress, from November 23, 1785 to May 12, 1786. In the 1790s he served three terms in the South Carolina State Senate, and was president of that body.
Yes, Clearly, the British lawyer had far more contact with the Delegates.
There is no indication that he was especially close to any of our most important Framers such as Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. He was apparently a brother-in-law by marriage to Charles Pinckney, but that's about as close as he got.
Martha Washington was especially close with George Washington, yet I suggest the only thing rubbing off on her was some of George.
Aside from that, Ramsay's doctrine on citizenship was the obvious and clear product of a self-interested sore-loser campaign in which he was trying to have the guy who beat him for US Representative declared ineligible.
Aside from that, Ramsay's doctrine on citizenship was the obvious and clear product of a self-interested sore-loser campaign in which he was trying to have the guy who beat him for US Representative declared ineligible.
And now who is demeaning and mischaracterizing an American Patriot? Very likely the House of Representatives saw it that way too, but had the vote gone the other way, David Ramsey would not have taken the seat instead of Smith, it would have been Commodore Alexander Gillon, who came in Second. Ramsey got just a little over half of Alexander Gillion's votes.
So with Ramsey not wining the seat regardless of what happened to Smith, how is his self interest advanced? Again, you speak from Ignorance. Ramsey lost the vote because his Anti-Slavery principles were very unpopular in South Carolina.
Ramsay's citizenship claims were utterly rejected by his peers, led by none other than James Madison, who said that PLACE OF BIRTH WAS WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES. And Ramsay was voted down, an almost unanimous 36 to 1.
I am familiar with that Statement by James Madison. It is the only thing he said. He absolutely said nothing else other than that Mr. Smith was born in South Carolina. Do you know why he never said anything else? It's because EVERYONE knew that it was the ONLY REQUIREMENT! Once you say someone is born there, it is the END OF THE DISCUSSION, because no other fact is relevant.
Oh, but wait. Perhaps i'm mistaken. Perhaps James Madison did say a thing or two more on the subject. I believe he said the matter would be greatly simplified if South Carolina had a law on the subject. I believe he also said that Mr. Smith's Ancestors were among the first settlers of South Carolina. For some reason, Madison didn't seem to think just saying Smith was born there ended debate.
Now why would it not end the debate if you are correct?
If it is hard to imagine a more authoritative voice than Rawle, it is equally hard to imagine a LESS authoritative one than Ramsay.
I dare say if you overwork your imagination any further, you might strain something. All I see from you IS the work of your imagination, and it's not even a very good one.