If I've called you anything, it's because you darn well deserved it.
Your so-called evidence is completely bogus. Heck, I can't even get you to focus on the evidence.
I can't even get you to say that if the evidence is clearly better against your theory, you'll admit it.
Because you won't, of course.
I've presented evidence using your sources that Madison DID NOT SAY what you said he did.
Of course Madison said what I said he did. That's verifiable. Anybody can look it up.
I've presented evidence using your sources concerning Wong Kim Ark to show IT DID NOT SAY what you said it did.
Of course Wong Kim Ark says what I said it does. You've presented absolutely nothing to discredit ANYTHING I've said about the case.
The words of the Court are not only clear, they repeat the same points multiple times in multiple ways.
Beyond that, the fact that US v Wong Kim Ark decided Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen is not disputed by any competent legal authority. That conclusion has even been affirmed by not one, but SEVERAL recent courts.
Don't you think judges can read cases and understand what they mean? Or do you think that the ability to understand a Supreme Court decision is only limited to people whose only qualification is that they are a "mama" in Texas?
When it comes to Supreme Court Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, specifically said the issue was "clear."
Yet you have continually SKIPPED over all these assertions to nit pick over something I NEVER said, failed to do anything but harangue over points TOTALLY UNRELATED to the subject at hand, and personally attacked people based on nothing more than your own baseless misconceptions.
Wow. That's projection, if I ever saw it.
Let's review. I'm the person who's presented the evidence here.
I'm the person who WOULD have given you the evidence that "law of nations" in our Constitution never came from Vattel (as you claimed), except for your steadfast and adamant refusal to ever accept any evidence that doesn't lead to a conclusion you personally like.
I'll still produce that evidence, if you can tell me you'll go with the evidence, and not with your personal preference of which fantasy to believe in.
But by God, sir.....you call me a liar again and I will most assuredly willing to make an exception.
I will in this instance withdraw the "liar" accusation. You're not a liar, just a dissembler. You make a big deal about a reference that was perfectly legitimate, that very mildly supported YOUR side of the argument, and pretend that there's something really wrong with it when in fact there is NOTHING wrong with the reference. It's a perfectly valid reference.
And that particular point out totally would only make MY case, that Alexander Gillon showed no real signs of being anti-slavery, and plenty of signs of being PRO-slavery (heck, the man directed that the proceeds from his estate should be used to BUY UP MORE "NEGROES" after he was gone).
That being the case, YES, David Ramsay was a SORE LOSER, and his little citizenship treatise was NOT written for the good of mankind.
Not that Ramsay knew anything about citizenship law in the first place. He was not even a lawyer.
So why do you and Windflier try to DISSEMBLE and OBFUSCATE regarding Ramsay?
Ramsay, as pathetic as he is - HE WAS VOTED DOWN, 36 TO 1, IN A VOTE LED BY FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION JAMES MADISON - is literally ALL YOU HAVE.
Every other voice from the time of the Founders and early America says your little theory is (to put it very mildly) nonsense.
Do I need to list again the 30 or so authorities from early America that say you're following an idiotic cult? That you're twisting and misrepresenting what the Constitution actually meant?
I can if you like.