Just a friend’s!

That’s fair but I think that raises the question if we see ourselves as advocates or academics in pursuit of the truth. We can discuss more later.

That said, I appreciate you’re willingness to engage and your commitment to good faith here.

I hope you have a nice weekend!

I know, but there seems to be an underlying suspicion that dismissiveness is not-academic. Sometimes, I think that’s principled, my friend.

Anyone who knows me (I hope) also knows I’m a nice colleague and a good scholar and a friendly person to engage with, but I don’t love what’s happening right now. I’d rather just focus on good historical debate absent the pressures of politics or litigation. We aren’t in that space, sadly. 😕

Respectfully, @jadler1969.bsky.social, I have been mostly focused on the historical claims unrelated to the 14A.

I understand folks may dislike my view that the 14A debate itself is anti-constitutional, which I am happy to defend elsewhere. But as a historical matter, the common law is plain.

Ilan made a claim about the nature of the common law that I think is absolute nonsense, which others have bought into.

I am being very careful to only talk about the common law standard from the 1300s to the 1800s here.

I did not claim that in this thread. This thread was simply about the meaning of the common law, which I think is absolutely true and impossible to refute.

If we want to talk about the interaction of the common law background and the 14A, we could have an entire discussion/thread about that.

I don’t like to be dismissive, but at the same time, this isn’t how historical questions should be initiated. We can have all sorts of debates about doctrine, law is indeterminate, but I do take a strong position against historical claims that come out of the blue— and defy 700 years of thought.

The problem, for me, is when someone starts with a historical answer and not a question, it raises a methodological issue. One wonders why you have to spend time to disprove an argument that has a consensus for a reason. I think if we weren’t in a hyper-litigious states, things would be different.

Everyone in my life is plainly unhinged.

Yes

None of this is relevant to the general rule though. Just missing details of interest.

What happened to children of non-naturalized aliens who were refugees from a nation that had successfully invaded England but was eventually defeated? The Channel Islands, aside, not many opportunities ripe for a lot of jurisprudence.

Precisely my thought process.

lol guilty