I don't get his whole focus on Rawle. Kent came before him, and St. George Tucker came before that.
Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.
Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?
Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.
I find his constant lauding of Rawle to be peculiar as well. The only reason for this of which I can think is that Rawle says what Jeff wants to hear.
Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.
Unless i'm mistaken, i've seen statements from Tucker which can be regarded as supporting either side.
Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?
It's not just that he goes straight to Rawle, he simply ignores anyone else, including Supreme Court Justices.
Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.
Bingo. I suspect Jeff has a personal reason for wanting "natural born" to mean anyone who was born here. He may have foreign parents who didn't naturalize before he was born, or perhaps someone close to him is in that situation. Rarely does one find such emotional attachment to an issue that has no personal bearing on themselves.