I remain unaware of the preference for first hand witnesses at a Constitutional Convention.
In this case you are not doing a good job keeping the context. Here is the salient aspect which you left out of your quote.
Chief Justice John Marshall was right in the thick of Constitutional ratification and he did love himself some Emmerick Vattel! Cited it and quoted it a LOT!
John Marshall was a *WITNESS* to the doings surrounding the Constitutional convention. He was a first hand account. He can relate his own understanding from what he heard first hand.
I will assume you just lost the context of the discussion and were not trying to mislead us deliberately.
You are normally good quoting in the context of a message to which you are responding.
I provided the only context you gave.
To: woodpusherI saw that one about the Constitutional Convention at #77. I had never heard that one before. I was wondering if you would give him credit for originality.
You have never heard of a preference for first hand witness testimony as opposed to hearsay? I was under the impression that you were somewhat familiar with the American legal process.
115 posted on 7/24/2023, 12:29:11 PM by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
My post was obviously not to you. My #139 replicated your complete text. I here replicated your complete post. Perhaps you can identify the part that I left out regarding context.
I will assume you just lost the context of the discussion and were not trying to mislead us deliberately.
I will assume as my post was not to you, and you provided no context, you are just once again unhinged.
I assume from your insane comments throughtout on the thread that your have lost reality.