Your usage of the erroneous “birther” terminology as a perjorative and an insult is the kind of behavior of a person of low moral character and wanting of the confidence to debate on the merits of an issue. Yo are of course free to engage in such behavior as you wish, but you do yourself no favors and leave us with a poor impression of your behavior, character, and reliability.
To avoid an opportunity for misunderstanding, perhaps you would care to describe exactly who you meant when you used the word, “they.”
In a previous posting you used:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
“To avoid an opportunity for misunderstanding, perhaps you would care to describe exactly who you meant when you used the word, “they.””
Again, if you could read, you would know “they” referred to the Supreme Court.
The problem with birthers - which is not a pejorative unless you believe being a birther is evil - is that they cannot read simple English sentences, and thus cannot understand a court opinion. Thus you wrote:
“Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements...” and cite as evidence:
“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”
But the WKA decision explains, clearly, that it is not based on FOLLOWING English common law:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”