Please do try to keep up. I am acknowledging the obvious fact that some people of the era held seriously wrong beliefs about the founders intentions regarding "natural born citizen."
You, on the other hand, are absolutely certain that nobody ever entertained ANY OTHER NOTION than that the Subjectship Law of England prevails as defining our Citizenry. I don't pretend your side doesn't exist. I acknowledge that a bunch of them thought we were following British law. You just refuse to consider the possibility that MOST American Founders of the time had been reading Vattel for a couple of Decades, and were heavily relying on it to create our Second Constitution. It's that CERTAINTY which marks you as a fool.
As for me, I've spent the last couple of years basing my conclusions on the evidence, rather than on some theory of what I think natural born citizenship ought to be, and then trying to cram history and law into my theory. So I've been open to changing my mind at any point.
"Evidence" that you sought out and cherry picked to arrive at your pre-determined conclusions. We are constantly hammering you with stuff you've never seen, but it is far too late to do any good, for you made up your mind before you even began.
Except now, it's hard to believe there's anything terribly important about the subject that I haven't read. I've presented here tons of evidence from early authorities that confirm the historical understanding of natural born citizenship, and say that your theory couldn't possibly be more wrong.
You keep citing Rawle, over and over again, and also you attempt to Push St. George Tucker into your camp, but I recall seeing quotes from him which dispel him as a source for you're argument. You are pretty much stuck with a single British Loyalist, British Trained Lawyer with an English perspective on subject law. You misrepresent Madison, you don't even bother to address Monroe, and you dismiss Publius and David Ramsey, Aristotle, Mathew Bacon, etc. without so much as a mussed hair.
You say that as if it were in some way important.
Obviously not on your level of comprehension.
Dumas was an influential American in the Netherlands!
And here your ignorance shines through as always. That, and you are once more demonstrated to be LYING when you said you've read all my arguments. Charles William Frederic Dumas was NOT an American. He was a Born in Germany to French parents. Learn what you are talking about!!!!
He sent Ben Franklin 3 copies of Vattel's book!
Ben Franklin said thank you!
Yeah, that's about the level of your understanding. You think Rawle absorbed the entirety of the founders ideas on "natural citizenship" by having dinner with them, but Franklin could have retained nothing from reading Vattel for use as a code book.
Oh - and don't forget to accuse anyone who debunks your BS of "lying." Or of being "paid."
Well, the first one is pretty consistently true. I can't speak for others, but i've certainly caught YOU lying. You are still trying to run away from it. As for being paid, I've never suggested such. (Again, you keep claiming to know what i've said, but you keep popping off with stuff I never did say.) No, i'm firmly convinced that there are plenty of bone headed Republicans who want to believe whatever they hear. Furthermore, given the absolutely horrible quality of your work, I would be greatly surprised if anyone was willing to pay you for it.