If the contention has to do with the way a law was understood by the law-writers and law-interpreters, why isn't posting court decisions and historical quotes the obvious way to prove that? I guess I still don't understand what you want him to do instead.
Friend, I've explained this in plain language to you a couple of times now. I don't get what's so hard about it.
Simply posting your contention on a subject, then letting innumerable citations and quotations do the talking for you, is how slimeball lawyers try to make a case. It rarely works in a court of law, and never in a debate.
You make a case that convinces others by using logic and reasoning - and in your own words. You use citations and relevant quotations by experts and historical figures to merely back up the case you are making.
Jeff posts tons of icing, but leaves out the cake. Does that make it clearer?