Do you mean to tell me that a guy who was on the OTHER SIDE during the war, and trained in British Law might have a BRITISH understanding of the Law? Heaven forfend!
Your vicious and unjustified attack on William Rawle is a clear sign of your corrupt, no-holds-barred attachment to your completely false birther theory.
Yes, Rawle had a British Loyalist stepfather, and the same article you cited noted that Rawle himself felt a "sense of humiliation over his family's British sympathies."
So for you to claim, falsely, that Rawle "was on the OTHER SIDE during the war" is flat-out despicable.
Incidentally, the same article notes that Rawle only spent a total of two years studying in England AND traveling through Europe. I can imagine the latter probably took up at least half of that.
All of which was well before he sat WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON at Franklin's house.
You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.
Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.
Rawle was a Loyalist ???
so what ???
the mother of George Washington was a Loyalist...
some other nice folks were Loyalists...
Should we believe that he was in blatant defiance of his Step Father in supporting the American cause? That is a ridiculous claim. He may have came to be a Patriotic (Patriotic derives from Pater, meaning "Father" by the way.) American, but he certainly could not have been while living with his Loyalist stepfather, and while getting his legal training in London.
Incidentally, the same article notes that Rawle only spent a total of two years studying in England AND traveling through Europe. I can imagine the latter probably took up at least half of that.
How long did it take to learn English law back then? Two years would seem adequate to me.
All of which was well before he sat WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON at Franklin's house.
You might think a man is known by his associates, but Judas kept excellent company. That Rawle had hung around with luminaries does not mean he knows what they had decided in 1787.
You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.
Which does not prove that he is correct on this issue.
Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.
So was Vattel. And in quite deliberate fashion. This just reinforces my point that the court can sometimes be wrong. When they were quoting Rawle, they were wrong.