You're still spouting Bayard, and Ignoring John Marshall, except for that stupid tidbit you keep throwing in about how he didn't see anything wrong with the book.
Bayard is a LONG way from where the real authority lies. The REAL authority lies in the men who were Delegates to the Convention, and Delegates to the Ratification. Men like George Washington, (Against your position) Benjamin Franklin (Also Against your position) John Marshall, John Jay, John Adams, James Madison, James Monroe, John Armstrong, James Wilson and so on. All of these people are AGAINST your position. All you can drag up is petty little nobodies years after the fact and who have no first hand knowledge of the deliberations.
These obscure people you keep dragging up are just desperate attempts to find ANY authority to support you.
The Ugly truth for you is that YOU CAN"T FIND ANYONE BETTER THAN BAYARD OR RAWLE. ( And Bayard doesn't even support your position.)
LOL! What descriptive can we use besides 'lame' to describe his argument? Gimpy? Prostate? Vegetative?
---
I did want to share this little tidbit I ran across the other day. It's a perfect explanation of the question of some of the Founders having more than one citizenship at the same time.
Apparently, it wasn't a dual citizenship, but a 'secondary' one established for the purpose of commerce.
And it had NO affect on the Allegiance of the primary, American citizenship, either.
There is, however, some relaxation of the old and stern rule of the common law, required and admitted under the liberal influence of commerce. Though a natural born subject cannot throw off his allegiance, and is always amenable for criminal acts against his native country, yet for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country, and the place of domicil determines the character of a party as to trade.
James Kent , Commentaries