if your opening gambit is an obviously false assertion — that there was an entire literature challenging the conventional view of birthright citizenship — and then you work your way backwards into an argument, you are a hack and a liar no matter how certain you are that you are right
jamelle
In which Professor Wurman candidly admits why he sees the history of the common law differently than anyone who has honestly studied it, and why rather than doing scholarship he just wrote and op-ed and a (terrible, demonstrably wrong) article about the common law that should have been rejected.
