Unless he is a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, or perhaps even someone who worked closely with them during this period, his expertise is NULL.You mean like William Rawle, who worked closely with Constitutional Convention President George Washington, major Constitutional Convention leader Benjamin Franklin, and several other Framers during the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and who gave a presentation to this core group of Founders on encouraging immigration?
Do you think such a person would be in a better position to know what a "natural born citizen" was?
Never mind the answer to that - BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS "YES." THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." - William Rawle, United States District Attorney and author of one of the major early works on the Constitution
Ah, wait. You have someone BETTER, don't you? Samuel Roberts, a little judge over several counties, who was NOT a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, who didn't work with ANY of the Founders or Framers, and who cites no authority but his own opinion.
Or maybe David Ramsay, who was expressly voted down 36 to 1 by a group led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, and which included 5 other signers of the Constitution.
Because those are the only REAL "authorities" from all of early America that you have.
Once again, by disparaging the best authorities, you illustrate what a fraud you are.
You mean like William Rawle, who worked closely with Constitutional Convention President George Washington, major Constitutional Convention leader Benjamin Franklin, and several other Framers during the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and who gave a presentation to this core group of Founders on encouraging immigration? No, not like Rawle at all. He did not attend deliberations, he was not a delegate, and he played no role in the Convention or ratification. Apart from that, he was trained in London at British law, and therefore is a contaminated source for issues where American law deviates from British law.
From what I have discovered, I think Rawle knew fully well that Vattel was the basis of "natural born citizen", but intentionally mislead others about it. There is no way he could not have known about that Book, because it was the product of people whom he knew personally, and was created at the behest of the State Legislature, and thereafter used as a reference by all the courts in Pennsylvania.
Yes, Rawle knew very well of that book, and intentionally misled people in his own.
Ah, wait. You have someone BETTER, don't you? Samuel Roberts, a little judge over several counties, who was NOT a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, who didn't work with ANY of the Founders or Framers, and who cites no authority but his own opinion.
I'm glad you brought him up. As usual, your attempt at being clever is going to backfire on you. Suppose you tell me how Roberts obtained his legal education, and from whom. I'll wait.
Once again, by disparaging the best authorities, you illustrate what a fraud you are.
OMG! A British Lawyer, a French Janitor, and some Spanish guy who wrote a book are your "best authorities"? You just don't realize how silly you look.