Not really. From memory as I don't have immediate availability to PDF, I'm pretty confident that the edited paper includes the statement about natural-born in the first page or two, perhaps in the first paragraph or two in the body of the paper, not the footnote. With respect to the footnote explaining why the clarification and edited was inserted, it was found just where I said to look. Imagine that?
"The version of the paper with that footnote is not from "a few years ago" but rather is clearly labeled "D R A F T April 18, 2010", mere days ago, less than a week ago."
I don't have access to PDF where I am, so I'll have to take you at your word about the "draft" date. But, I clearly said that Solum published his work several years ago, and has subsequently amended it, didn't I?
"You sir, are guilty of gross misrepresentation. Did you think no one would actually read the articles in question? "
Only in your mind Gato, you're very peculiar mind. Where do I misrepresent or mischaracterize ANYTHING that Solum said?
"Did you think no one would actually read the articles in question?"
Right, I told people precisely where to find the paper and where the relevant footnote was located because I expected people NOT to look for it themselves. That's what people do who are trying to hide information. /s - apparently, that's how conspiracy theorists think, apparently.
I believe I even made mention of the fact that I couldn't copy & paste it because of the limitations of my internet device, no PDF capability. "I think, for whatever reason, the Good Professor failed to consider his words in light of the parentage issues of the Democratic nominee. So he needed to make this clarification. "
No, I think the good professor got tired of people taking a single sentence from his rather lengthy and scholarly work to support their assertions, ones which Solum clearly disagrees. "I guess there was no symposium to Consider the eligibility of Barack H. Obama. Now why would that be? "
Because the conventional wisdom amongst any constitutional scholar and attorney of any repute, is anyone who is born on American soil subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a natural-born citizen. It's only conspiracy theorist who base their opinions on the musing of internet bloggers, is this an issue. That's the fact of the matter.
Posit:
1. To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest:
Since the whole thing about a single citizen parent was in a footnote, and I just checked the first 3 pages again, it was only in footnote 3, which extends across pages 1 and 2, you can hardly say he assumed it as part of his general thesis, nor did he put it forward for discussion, he put it there apparently because there was entirely too much discussion of what he originally wrote.
It forms no part of the body of the scholarly paper. You clearly implied that it was at least a peripheral part of that, or even central to it. You also said "several years ago", implying well before the McCain and Obama eligibility controversies, when even the original version was written *about* the McCain eligibility and for a symposium on just that subject very near the end of the Campaign (September 2008) less than 2 is not several.
No, I think the good professor got tired of people taking a single sentence from his rather lengthy and scholarly work to support their assertions, ones which Solum clearly disagrees.
I included the entire text of the footnote, he doesn't clearly agree or disagree, he wrote:
the conventional view is that almost anyone born on American soil would be a natural born citizen: limited exceptions may have existed for the children of foreign Ambassadors, for the children of slaves, and perhaps others. This article does not address the question whether the conventional view is correct.