Replies

And you chose to believe the most Liberal possible interpretation of it, and in spite of quite a lot of evidence against it.

We can go through every bit of your "evidence," if you like, and show what c*ap it is.

We've already done so with David Ramsay, who was not a legal expert, did not represent the views of the Founders or our early leaders, and was voted down 36 to 1 when his views on citizenship were put to a vote.

We've done so with the matter regarding Eldred, and shown what a bogus pile of c*ap your claim regarding that was.

We've done so with the James McClure affair. There is no evidence at all that McClure was regarded as being a natural born citizen for any reason other than that he was born in Charleston, SC, after the Revolution.

We've shown what a pile of c*ap your twisted interpretation of US v. Wong Kim Ark is.

We've shown that you can't come up with one single quote from any of the Founders or Framers EVER stating that they relied on Vattel for the meaning of natural born citizenship, that natural born citizenship ever required citizen parents for any person born on US soil, or anything of the like.

And of course, we've seen a long list of quotes from virtually every significant early American legal authority, explaining what natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility were all about, and NOT ONE SINGLE TIME does ANYBODY ever so much as IMPLY that citizen parents were ever required for anyone born on US soil.

I'm sorry, but your fantasy has no clothes.

As far as the accurate historical understanding of "natural born citizen" being "the most Liberal possible interpretation of it," tell it to Mark Levin. Tell it to the Heritage Foundation. Tell it to National Review. Go and accuse our foremost conservative champions of being "liberal trolls."

Go ahead.

You anti-Founders, anti-Framers, anti-Constitution, anti-conservative-champions loser.

We can go through every bit of your "evidence," if you like, and show what c*ap it is.

No, we cannot, for YOU are incapable of doing it. All you can do is to continue to assert you are correct, and that you understand history, and that you understand the law, and that any thing which contradicts your view of your own understanding is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

You are a legend in your own mind, but a reasonable person you are not. I doubt you can put together an argument which is not some form of a fallacy. And when people aren't impressed by that, you lie by omission (and commission I suspect) with a good dose of ad hominem thrown in in an attempt to brow beat.