Boy, you’re really grasping at straws.
Is that image from the judges’ report that Roberts alluded to in his book? I seem to recall that a later edition of the book added in a copy of the judges’ actual report, instead of simply referring to it.
Whatever. Two things are clear:
1. Whatever you’re referring to wasn’t even in Roberts’ original book.
2. You’ve produced no record that Jasper Yeates himself ever approved Roberts’ statement on citizenship, approved Roberts’ book, sponsored Roberts’ book, READ Roberts’ book, or ever said anything that supported the stupid birther BS in any way.
This is what you do. You complain that others use really authoritative sources (like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story) who weren’t actually at the Constitutional Convention - although it is crystal clear that at least close to half of the Signers of the Constitution contradict the birther bullsh*t.
And then in the next breath, you claim that, oh, Jasper Yeates took the notes at a ratifying convention, and he helped write a report that was REFERRED TO by a several-counties judge who says something you like. So wow, THAT’S authoritative.
No, it isn’t. It’s bullsh*t. And anybody reading this knows it.
Why should I have to do that? You constantly point out how this or that person never objected to something said. You just mentioned Robert Bingham the other day NOT objecting to the Quotation of Rawle as PROOF that he agreed. You've been constantly quoting John Marshall as completely agreeing with James Bayard because he didn't explicitly disagree. You point out that Rawle MUST have understood completely about "natural born citizen" because he had dinner with George Washington.
By the idiot standards of Jeff the looney, not saying anything is GREAT PROOF that someone agrees with something.
In the case of a book utilized by the Entire Court system of Pennsylvania, it's a tough claim to swallow that the Judges who's work is cited in the book, could have been unaware of it, and being aware, would have tolerated such a glaring error.
No, the probabilities are virtually unassailable that the Judges Knew exactly what Roberts attributed to them, and that they tacitly approved of it. Beyond them, so did the entire Legal system of Pennsylvania for at least forty years that we can demonstrate.
This is what you do. You complain that others use really authoritative sources (like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story) who weren’t actually at the Constitutional Convention - although it is crystal clear that at least close to half of the Signers of the Constitution contradict the birther bullsh*t.
Nope, this is just the lie where you conflate a vote to seat William Smith as being equivalent to agreeing with you. Of course you do this with everything, including James A Bayard as agreeing with you when he clearly does not. You routinely attribute ambiguous or unrelated commentary as agreeing with you, and we have long been on to your silly games.