Not at all. I merely point out that he disagrees with you, and that is all I need to do for 1866.
His clarification on the topic just happens to be correct. You, on the other hand, thought they wanted to create anchor babies when they didn't.
(Minor v Happersett also disagrees with you. 1875.)
Bingham doesn't disagree with the likes of Wilson (his own Judiciary Chair) or Howard or Trumbull (or me).
His clarification on the topic just happens to be correct.
Yes, when Bingham later says --
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"--
He's in agreement with Zephaniah Swift (1795), St. George Tucker (1803), James Kent (1825) -- all whom espoused the jus soli view before Wm. Rawle.
You, on the other hand, thought they wanted to create anchor babies when they didn't.
Anchor babies? That concept presupposes a closed-border/illegal-entry world which was utterly unknown to the Framers. I doubt it was in their purview to deny entry to persons wanting to come, be industrious, worship freely, and better their lives. That, after all, was what motivation the Founders or their recent ancestors. Here you again exhibit the fallacy of anachronism and projection.
(Minor v Happersett also disagrees with you. 1875.)
Pure horse crap. Proving once more there isn't a legal case you can't misread. Minor nowhere says that a person born of alien parents isn't a natural born citizen. There was no child of alien parents in the case before them, and the Court explicitly made clear it wasn't addressing that question. With WKA, we arrive at a case involving such a person. That's the relevant case when addressing the case of Obama, Jindal, or Rubio.