Bayard offers an opinion contrary to law. His opinion on this point is discredited.
As we've been over many times now, Bayard offers an opinion contrary to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the law was.
It's not contrary to the interpretation of Marshall, or Story, or Kent, or any of the other experts in Constitutional law of the early United States.
It really amounts to a claim that you understand the law better than Chief Justice Marshall, and Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent, and James Bayard, and other respected experts who actually KNEW the Founding Generation personally, and whose lifelong legal careers were shaped in the milieu of the legal world of the early United States.
I don't find such a claim credible.