Here is an excerpt of William Loughton Smith's rebuttal to Dr Ramsay's accusation, (That he hadn't been a citizen for the required 7 years.) Which were both Published in the "State Gazette of South Carolina" and submitted as evidence in the Congressional hearing on the matter.
The Doctor says the circumstance of birth does not make a citizen- This I also deny. Vattel says, " The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent. " I was born a Carolinian, and I defy the Doctor with all his ingenuity, arimetical or political, to say at what moment I was disfranchised- at what moment I lost my citizenship. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen of America under the new government, though then resident at Geneva. I never by any act disqualified myself. There never was a moment when I became a citizen of any other country. I never took and oath of any kind in my life, till I was admitted at the bar in Carolina. I never paid any tax to any other country- therefore, unless I was a citizen of South Carolina, I should be glad the Doctor's great ingenuity in discoveries would inform me what country I was a citizen of....
The Doctor thinking himself a very popular man and having no doubt that his being named a candidate was sufficient to carry his election throughout the district, when he found that he stood no chance of being elected by his own merits, he thought he would try what he could obtain by the demerit of his opponent. Not finding any thing in his character or morals, which he dared attack, he was driven to this expedient: he attacked his right of citizenship, his birth right-the inheritance of his ancestors- that, which at the age of eleven, when an orphan, was left him by his father!
...
But I should be unworthy of the good opinion of my fellow citizens, were I, for an instant, to suffer their minds to be biased by such attempts, or a reflection to be thrown on those who have, at various times, since my return to Carolina, given me their votes for public offices. When it is recollected that my ancestors came into Carolina upwards of a hundred years ago-that I was born in this very city-that every thing I hold most dear in the world is in Carolina, nay, in this very district; I trust my countrymen, will not suffer themselves to be duped with the artifices which have been made use of, and will not think that my having been a few years in Europe for my education, with the public consent, should deprive me of my right of citizenship.
...
And this last part, just for kicks.
The Doctor however declares that he will not, if elected, endeavor to procure the emancipation of slaves; but then he must act contrary to his principles and sentiments, and surely he would not wish the citizens of the district should impose so painful a burden upon him as to require him to thwart perpetually his own sentiments and principles. It is very well known that his principled against slavery, and it is idle for him to contradict what is so universally known. People can see, hear, and recollect as well as the Doctor and his handing about pamphlets imported from the northward against slavery, is a strong proof of his inclination to abolish it.
So William Loughton Smith Himself invokes Vattel, and urges consideration of his birthright through his father and ancestors. Nitwit Jeff Winston thinks the ENTIRE vote was a specific affirmation of the word "Place".
I think he is just too stubborn or too stupid to learn.
Once again, you demonstrate what a complete FRAUD and TWISTER of both history and the Constitution you are.
When virtually every credible LEGAL EXPERT in American history is unanimous in their statements of what natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility entail, you call that "argumentum ad numerum."
When virtually NO LEGAL EXPERT in all of history supports your BS claims, what exactly do you call that?
Essentially you're saying that if almost every legal expert in history says something, and someone points out the fact of the COMBINED AUTHORITY OF VIRTUALLY EVERY GENUINE LEGAL EXPERT IN HISTORY, that person is making an "argumentum ad numerum."
But YOU can sit here and spout some BS that is genuinely supported by virtually NO real legal expert, in all of history, and why, there's no fallacy there!!
Since the real experts don't support you, you trot out anyone who does (David Ramsay, Samuel Roberts, and Herb Titus) and pretend, no matter HOW weak their "qualifications," that they're better experts than our actual experts.
Since the real experts don't support you, you try and discredit them when they say you're full of BS, or claim they didn't say what they actually said (William Rawle, US v. Wong Kim Ark, etc.)
Since the real experts don't support you, you twist the words of legitimate figures to try and make them SEEM to support you (Minor v. Happersett, John Bingham, Jacob Howard, etc.)
You are both a fraud and an idiot.
A fraud, for making literally dozens of readily documentable fallacious arguments for your wagonload of BS that you want to dump on others, and an idiot for continuing to push the point after fraud upon fraud by you has already been publicly exposed.