[jethropalerobber]

Note these requirements for proof:
...
3. historical precedent ***starting in 1789 and up to no later than 1900*** that supports your views

that's an interesting condition.

should he make his argument blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back also?

[rwfromkansas]

The reason I have that requirement is that if I didn't say that, do you know what he would cite for judicial precedent?

1920-onward.

NOTHING prior. That's because the court took a turn on this issue in the 20th century. Before, they would have agreed with me perfectly on this matter.

[rwfromkansas]

The point is that I won't allow someone to beat around the bush and try to establish proof of their position by citing recent court cases. It is how these people work.....they always do that. So, I know what to expect before he or she ever replies (likely the poster won't).