Replies

I very much doubt anyone is still reading this thread[.]

That's been true for just about every thread on these topics for several years now. As you flounder, such supporters you imagine seem to vanish. The only ones who have somewhat stuck around are MamaTexan (and not since March, that I recall) and FW (who has no knowledge of the topic).

I don't see any point in engaging you without an audience, . . . Making you look like a fool in front of others is the only benefit I can see to pursuing a discussion with you.

And given your inability to identify a SINGLE point on which I've been in error, or mishandled a source, or was unable to respond substantively to a point you've made -- how is it that you think you have (or will) make me out to be a fool? Oh, right, you occasionally post a PICTURE to go along with your post. Right, that makes your argument SO impressive.

You double-down on delusional, then re-double, and quadruple on it over and over.

During the recent spate of 14th Amendment threads, you urged me to post, predicting a chorus of rejoinders and laughter from the FR crowd. I did. The actuality? The laughter from these "others" was non-existent, so you felt compelled to jump in and got handed your @ss as usual. So I laughed (at you), and you then pulled one of your predictable "you're not worth my time" exits.

Same as this thread. Same as about two dozen others.

Same as it will be on the next thread. "It's deja vu, all over again" with you every time. (R.I.P. Yogi).

But I don't need an audience. It suffices to systematically dismantle every one of your cherished arguments:

J. Gray ignored or misread the 39th Congress? Totally destroyed.

Vattel was some singular inspiration since there was no one else (esp. on the English side) speaking of the right of revolution and independence? Nonsense in light of Locke speaking of the "right of revolution," Jefferson citing Locke and Sidney as the "foremost" writers on liberty, and English history seen through the execution/banishment of two kings plus enactment of a "Bill of rights." Yeah, you were well off the mark on that argument.

Wm. Rawle was the genesis of a deliberate corruption of an original jus sanguinis view on "NBC?" Shown to be total nonsense in light of writers before Rawle publishing the same jus soli principle, coupled with the fact you've overlooked that the Pennsylvania Judges Report was to the PA Legislature for purposes of understanding state law application of English statutes, whereas Rawle is speaking to the higher and broader Constitutional perspective. A basic "apples and oranges" confusion on your part.

And then we have things like your dishonest, truncated citations to James F. Wilson and Justice Story. (And you still have no clue why September 15, 1776, was significant).

These are a but a few of your blunders. It's fun rubbing your nose in them over and over. And I'm sure the next opportunity is right around the corner.