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 of all, I do not give a sh*t what any modern day "scholar" thinks about something. If you want to prove something, quote it from the late 18th century or early 19th century, and do not waste my time with what modern fools think.
Second of all, William Lewis (US Attorney and Pennsylvania convention delegate) died in 1819. Robert's acquired his legal education solely from William Lewis, and Roberts prominently states that Vattel's principle of citizenship is the law in Pennsylvania. Were this statement by Robert's false, William Lewis, (his mentor) WM Tilghman, (Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, Maryland Constitutional Convention Delegate) Jasper Yeats, (Convention Delegate and Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice), Thomas Smith, (Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention Delegate and Supreme Court Justice) , & H.H. Brackenridge, (Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, Pennsylvania Convention Delegate) would have all said to him:
"You stupid twit! Don't you know that English Common law is the basis of citizenship? "
Right here is a point where you need to do some soul searching. Do you so badly want to believe something that you will insist on ignoring obvious facts?
There is no way in H3ll that Samuel Roberts could have published that book in 1808 Philadelphia and gotten away with saying Vattel is the basis of Citizenship in Pennsylvania, if it were not true.
No. Do the decent thing and simply admit that the book is genuine, it represents the conventional opinion of the Pennsylvania legal community of the time, and that these people ought to know what was the intent of the Constitution because they were all convention delegates to the Pennsylvania state ratification convention.
You are trying to hold back a tide of evidence with your arms, and it is simply impossible. No reasonable person will believe that Roberts could have gotten away with writing a prolifically utilized book with such a false statement on such a very significant point in the very first chapter.
Look at your argument with the light of truth.
If you want to prove something, quote it from the late 18th century or early 19th century, And when I do that with the likes of Swift, Kent, Tucker, Rawle, and Story, you ignore them. Rawle was appointed by George Washington. You find that same provenance significant with Lewis, but then pooh-pooh it with Rawle. Your inconsistency is amusing.
Were this statement by Robert's false, William Lewis, [they] would have all said to him: "You stupid twit! Don't you know that English Common law is the basis of citizenship? "
And this is the reasoning and argument I held up to you when you tried insinuating John Bingham was stating a rule on citizenship at odds with his "learned friend" James F. Wilson who was citing Blackstone and Wm. Rawle. Of course, you never attempted to explain that one. But you're learning from me how to make arguments from the historical evidenc. Good for you.
And as for my soul-searching, I've already covered this. The purpose of Roberts's book was to inform the Pennsylvania legislature on what English statutes remained in force in Pennsylvania. The status of those born here doesn't hinge on a statute, so that question is simply outside the stated scope of the work. So the comment on citizenship is, as attorneys and judges call it, "obiter dicta." As judges acknowledge, those portions of judicial opinions often aren't put together with the same thought and attention to detail as to the core parts. Did the other judges focus in on this issue? Possibly. Though maybe not. Did it matter for purposes of the project what rule they stated as to domestic birth? No, as that didn't impact the issue of which English statutes remain in effect.
Doe Roberts state the rule is one stemming from the Constitutional Convention? No. He doesn't state a source. He states (p. 26, fn 12) that the English rule and the perpetual allegiance he sees attached to that seem incompatible with notions of liberty).
The point remains that Roberts's work is the outlier view here. It seems not to have been cited or corroborated by anyone. Not even by those (e.g., C.J. Fuller) who are arguing for the Vattel rule. In the 39th Congress, there's a colloguy between Sen Trumbull and Sen. Cowan of Pennsylvania about how children born in Pennsylvania to all these German (non-naturalized) immigrants are unquestionably considered citizens. Cowan concurs. What Roberts states doesn't ever appear to have been applied as the rule in PA, at least not as to white persons. What you need to truly establish your point is an example of a white person, born here to alien parents, who was stated to be born an alien. In other words, you need a Julia Lynch in Pennsylvania, but with a different conclusions. And you don't have that.
that these people ought to know what was the intent of the Constitution because they were all convention delegates to the Pennsylvania state ratification convention.
In the absence of any evidence (and there is none) that the meaning of "natural born citizen" was discussed at all within the Convention, then there is no reason to presume they know better than anyone else. They each likely had a personal understanding. I think Franklin and Adams and the delegates who were aware how "subject" and "citizen" were used interchangeably had an understanding, too.
What we know for sure is the words they adopted. And for the reasons given in my prior post those words point us to the English common law, not Vattel.
You are trying to hold back a tide of evidence with your arms, and it is simply impossible.
Oh, I like the little rhetorical flourish here. The point is utter crap, but you word it nicely.