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.
Yes, well, except for the inconvenient fact that by the time Roberts' book was published, two of the four Justices who authored the report were dead, and a third died about the time the book was published.
The Chief Justice, of course, continued to live for some years. But he was the only Justice whose work was mentioned in Roberts' book who did. And one might imagine that as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania he probably had some other fish to fry than correcting what would've been perceived as a fairly insignificant error in Roberts' commentary.