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.
I withdraw the claim that for you to make the point is "despicable." There is indeed some evidence to suggest that Rawle may have been a Loyalist as a teenager. But it is clear that, IF SO, he rejected that and became a loyal US citizen.
How long did it take to learn English law back then? Two years would seem adequate to me.
Regardless, do you know what the universal and essential training of AMERICAN lawyers was, before, during and for perhaps 100 years after Independence?
It was English law.
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.
Really? Because HE WAS THERE. He was in PHILADELPHIA, throughout the Constitutional Convention, and he is KNOWN to have met with both Franklin and Washington in Ben Franklin's home in Philadelphia in the months before the Convention.
In fact, they had ongoing meetings, so it's almost certain that he continued in close company with them AFTER the Constitutional Convention.
Were you there, DL? Were you in Philadelphia? Did you know Ben Franklin and George Washington personally? Did YOU spend hours and hours discussing political and legal matters with them in Ben Franklin's home?
If you didn't, then before William Rawle who did, I think there is only one valid thing you could possibly do.
And that is: Shut the hell up.
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.
No, but it proves he was in a HELL of a better position to know something about it than you ever were.
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.
Well, it was the majority of the Court, in the deciding Opinion, that referenced Rawle's quote. And they did so specifically in regard to citizenship, in a discussion that talked extensively about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.
So you can claim "the Court was wrong" all you want. But your opinion carries no weight at all, and theirs does.
As for Vattel in The Venus, he wasn't even referenced regarding citizenship. He was referenced regarding DOMICILE. And the translation wasn't even the one that says "natural born citizens."
So that is a thoroughly, thoroughly LOSING argument.
In fact, any Vattel argument you can come up with is a losing one. Historically, you have absolutely no evidence that the Framers paid the slightest attention to him in the Presidential eligibility clause. And it is prima facie, on-its-face OBVIOUS that "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen" when we changed "subject" to "citizen."
So your entire argument is just baseless birther bs.