I've been over all this before. (see what happens when you are a johnny come lately?) William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1787 that ratified the Constitution.
Samuel Robert's Legal education comes from William Lewis. You might remember him as one of William Rawle's co-counsels in the Pennsylvania freedom trials.
I will also point out that Philadelphia was the US Capitol when the US Constitution was written, (Declaration too.) so the legal community of Philadelphia probably has a better understanding of it than those of any other US City.
Pennsylvania also had a constitution that was written by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, et al, and that contained therein the exact same Vattel based Jus Sanguinus measures as are being discussed.
Beyond that, you sort of gloss right over the fact that Samuel Robert's book prominently displayed the names of all the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania, and attributes the information contained therein to their work. Roberts book was widely used throughout the Pennsylvania legal community.
Do you believe for a moment that this would pass unnoticed unless the information contained therein was correct?
It's not like Supreme Court Judges know how to sue anybody or issue "orders" or anything.
You really don't have a consistent argumentative bone in your body, do you?
And here you are once again accusing me of being "inconsistent", when demonstrably I am not. Samuel Roberts has direct provenance to a ratifying convention delegate. Vattel is even mentioned in the debate regarding the rights of a citizen.
And William Lewis left us with no direct statement by which he indicates one way or the other which view of "natural born citizen" he favored. Again, I'll note what Prof. Ramsey says:
First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear – as clear as we can be about these matters - that no widespread public
What you've got here is SPECULATION that that because there's a connection between Lewis and Samuel Roberts, that what Roberts writes in 1817 is what Lewis thought over two decades earlier.
Ted Cruz believes he is eligible. His Con Law teacher Tribe takes a view that isn't entirely consistent with Cruz's position. You can't blithely draw the equals sign between Lewis and Roberts simply on the view of a pedagogical connection.
Beyond that, you sort of gloss right over the fact that Samuel Robert's book prominently displayed the names of all the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania, and attributes the information contained therein to their work. Roberts book was widely used throughout the Pennsylvania legal community.
I've covered this point in-depth in the past. And, as so often is the case with you, you pulled your "I'm not goig to bother reading" evasion. (Funny how that happens with such predictability whenever the argument clearly is trending against you.) So here are some key points again for your edification:
What the PA judges in their words said about that work:
"The Report which [the judges] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the Profession, and in the public confidence; but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION, of the character of which is does not partake. The distinguished characters who have made the Report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it should be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English Statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice whatever may be urged on either side[.]" (Preface to First Edition, viii).
So the judges themselves state that this work has no value as precedent, and a later judicial decision will supersede their remarks.
And I also addressed your bit about Wm. Rawle:
In any event, it's a book about which English Statutes remain in force in the State of Pennsylvania; questions on citizenship which don't hinge on statutory construction are outside the scope of the project. Commentary on the later point is obiter dicta (within a book the authors characterize as being entirely obiter dicta). When William Rawle later pens his "A View of the Constitution," he's writing from the federal/Constitutional -- not state law -- perspective. And in writing on citizenship from that perspective, Rawle was not bound in any sense by what Roberts wrote, but was free (and no doubt did) take account of the more prevalent jus soli expressed by others.
Your "Rawle deliberately lied" point is another of your Sacred Cows that is getting eaten.
There. Take heed this time.
Pennsylvania also had a constitution that was written by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, et al, and that contained therein the exact same Vattel based Jus Sanguinus measures as are being discussed.
And that Pennsylvania constitution contains this:
SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.
This is indeed hilarious. So both Franklin and Adams (the other two of the three most illustrious members of the Declaration Committee) both later have a hand in drafting state constitutions that retain the ECL, very-un-Vattel terminology ("natural born subject") you claim Jefferson wiped away with the stroke of his pen.
Good grief, do you READ the sources you cite? Or do you just blindly repeat what you've read on some Birther article? This is just one more to add to the list of sources you've misread or blatantly misquoted, which list includes James Otis, Joseph Story, and James F. Wilson.
Your incompetence is boundless.