Let us turn your argument on it's head and say their ability to reason is likely no better than mine. In addition to that, my ability to access information vastly outstrips theirs, or indeed most courts until fairly recently. I have a better vantage point. That is all.
About these things, there is no "pretense" they are self evidently true.
The fact is, virtually every legal authority in history is against your claim.
And here you repeat your same old song. Beyond Madison (who's support for you I dispute) you have no FACTUAL Authorities on your side. Legal? Meaning did they work in Law? Yes. People who know what the h*ll the Delegates did in Convention? No. You have an abject puacity of examples from among the group of people who know what they are talking about. Ex post facto legal talking heads? Those you have aplenty.
Your response to that: “Oh, that’s an argument ad numerum.”
A point, the relevance of which, you have demonstrably failed to comprehend, else you would stop asserting the fallacy. One more time. The numbers of people who think something, is NOT PROOF. At one time, the authorities of the world thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. They were all wrong.
And no, it isn’t. The combined legal expertise of every real authority in history represents the combined legal expertise of every real authority in history.
No it doesn't. The ONLY opinions of relevance are those of Convention Delegates and State Ratifying legislatures. Subsequent lawyers can only offer their personal opinions, not first hand testimony. The legal system has a term for such opinion; "hearsay."
The nation has been saddled with a great deal of misery because Judges have presented their own opinions as law, when in fact it was not. There *IS* no right to Abortion guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It is made up bullsh*t, just as is your understanding of "natural born citizen."
It represents a massive mountain of literally thousands of years of detailed legal study, knowledge and expertise.
And it is all moot unless it represents a seat inside the deliberations. No amount of studying old law is relevant when people are creating new law. It becomes merely "hearsay" opinion. (And contradicted by other opinions, as I have shown.)
And virtually every bit of that mountain of study, knowledge and expertise says your theory is complete and total BS.
As I have explained above, if they don't have first hand knowledge regarding the creation of new law, their knowledge of old law won't give them understanding of it. It will, in fact, give them a MISUNDERSTANDING of it.
The hilarious thing is that you pretend it’s the other way around: that all the assembled legal scholars of US history are the june-bug and you are the mountain.
Not at all. I just notice that from their perspective, this is a trivial issue, and it is not surprising that they didn't bother to get it accurate, and instead preferred to claim it meant something with which they were familiar and with which they were comfortable.
Again, how many delegates do you have?
Then you have absolutely nothing at all to support your BS claims, and I have no idea why you quote Bingham.
You are really nothing more than a naked propagandist for your BS claim.
When I or anyone else produces a massive list of real authorities that say you’re full of ****, then you plead “argumentum ad numerum,” even though doing so is in itself a fallacy, because we’re not saying a thing is true because a lot of people believe it, we’re saying that the fact that virtually every REAL AUTHORITY IN HISTORY says it’s true indicates that it probably is.
When anyone produces REAL AUTHORITY to back up the truth, you say it doesn’t mean a damn thing unless it came from a FRAMER.
Then, as soon as it suits you, you plead the weakest of possible authorities and claim it boosts your own argument. David Ramsay, who certainly was not a Framer and was voted down 36 to 1 by those who were. Samuel Roberts, who was an obscure little judge over several counties.
You’re really little better than a troll.