Cruz likely eligible to be President

On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.

Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.

Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.

No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.

If the Founders and Framers established a Constitutional rule, and that Constitutional rule has never been changed by Constitutional Amendment, then the Constitutional rule still applies.

The US Constitutional rule states they make make a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to follow.

The State Constitutions enumerate no such rule. They made a legislative act that would have sunsetted just as ALL mere legislative acts do.

Again, you attempt confuse two desperate concepts to justify an unauthorized authority.

BTW - please show me any words contained in the Constitution that grants the federal authority the ability to determine:

1)who is or is not a citizen
2)what does or does not constitute 'natural born'.

AND

the authority to impliment such acts within the States as may fall under the naturalization rule.

-----

That Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

For the federal government, not the People.

Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law

-----

But don't misrepresent what the Founding Fathers and the Framers meant.

I agree completely. That's why I'm attempting to prevent you from it.

-----

As for "putting words in your mouth:" I haven't. I am simply suggesting to you what your best REAL argument would be.

As you have yet to provide any evidence to support your contentions against a single one of my arguments, I would submit that I am not the one in need of advice.

And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker

You are simply delusional, at least in a figurative sense.

Showing that St. George Tucker quoted Vattel on something completely unrelated to natural born citizenship is a ridiculous attempt to make an argument where absolutely no argument exists.

I and other reasonable interpreters of past history and law have noted, probably on MANY occasions, that Vattel WAS QUOTED by past legal authorities. Ben Franklin wrote that he appreciated 3 copies of Vattel's book, because "the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."

Do you know what the heck the "law of nations" even MEANS? Today we would call it "INTERNATIONAL LAW."

John Marshall quotes Vattel's thoughts on when a person who is a citizen of ONE country has his domicile in a foreign land, and is effectively participating as if he were a member of the foreign society.

And St. George Tucker quotes Vattel to say that independent nations may band together and form a confederacy.

Big whoop. These are all matters of INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is INTERNATIONAL LAW that Vattel was regarded as having some authority in.

But NONE of the Founders or Framers EVER quoted Vattel in regard to our internal affairs, and CERTAINLY not as an authority on what constituted US citizenship.

More relevantly, St. George Tucker said:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker even explicitly defines for us here who NATURAL BORN CITIZENS are. He says they are those BORN WITHIN THE STATE.

He then defines who aliens are: THOSE BORN OUT OF IT.

And everything you write is like this. You stretch the faintest of possible associations and claim it's "evidence."

And you completely ignore or brush aside the CLEAR WORD of what a natural born citizen was and was not.

That is called TWISTING HISTORY, TWISTING LAW, and (since it is all in regard to the Constitution) TWISTING THE CONSTITUTION.

And YOU are guilty of it.

Tucker even explicitly defines for us here who NATURAL BORN CITIZENS are. He says they are those BORN WITHIN THE STATE.

LOL! How do you go about using what Tucker quotes another person as saying as to how the situation was prior to the existence of the State as being born 'in' a State prior to that State even existing? That's totally nonsensical.

Unless you're into picking cherries.

If you bother reading further down-

This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.

The federal government has the ability to make a uniform rule for naturalization ONLY

-----

Again, continuing FURTHER DOWN from your quote-

The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, .....

So, if the State governments have ONLY the authority to make denizens , and the federal government has ONLY the authority to make a rule for naturalization, WHO has the authority to determine who is or is not natural born?

The answer is........NEITHER!

ALL any governmental entity can do is acknowledge the definition that already exists.

just as Vattel said
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

just as the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

Just as the definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

just as the decision of Wong Kim Ark said:
it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

There is only ONE WAY to acquire *natural-born citizenship*.

You must inherent it from your parents.

-----

Have a nice day.

This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.

The federal government has the ability to make a uniform rule for naturalization ONLY.

I certainly agree that Congress did not have the power to define the status of those born citizens in the United States.

Note what Tucker says: This was the legal state of the subject in Virginia when the Constitution was adopted.

The United States already existed at that time. It existed after 1776 and before 1787.

And the situation in Virginia was the exact same as the situation in ALL the States. Natural born citizens were determined by the common law rule that had ALWAYS been in force.

The Constitution did not change that rule, and it didn't give Congress the power to change it.

So the same rule applied before the Constitution, and it applies now.

just as Vattel said The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Except he DIDN'T say that. he never mentioned natural born citizens at all. That was a mistranslation 10 years after the Constitution was written.

Even if he had, he was speaking for himself and Switzerland, NOT england and the US.

And the situation in Virginia was the exact same as the situation in ALL the States. Natural born citizens were determined by the common law rule that had ALWAYS been in force.

The Constitution did not change that rule, and it didn't give Congress the power to change it.

So the same rule applied before the Constitution, and it applies now.

Incidentally, at least two courts have specifically declared that this was the situation.

Chancellor Sandford, in Lyncy v. Clarke (1844) said this was exactly the situation. The Supreme Court confirmed Sandford's ruling, at the national level, in 1898 in US v. Wong Kim Ark.

Once again, that Court said the same rule had always applied. First, in England. Then, in the Colonies. Then, in the United States after the Revolution. Then, in the United States after the Constitution was established.

Elsewhere, I went into some detail about the ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark. You need to read that post. Because not only does it represent an ACCURATE reading of that case, it also represents the reading of that case that is accepted by every significant legal authority in history since that time.

So in other words, it is both CLEAR and (except for a few birthers, almost all of whom have no real legal expertise) UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED that this understanding of US v. Wong Kim Ark is correct.

As for your two other quotes:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham

Once again, you do what birthers always do: Take evidence that SEEMS to support your case, and present it as "definitive."

Both quotes misrepresent what the people who said them understood natural born citizens to be.

The debates in Congress had to do with making sure black people born in America had the rights of natural born citizens that they were due as natural born citizen. The same rights that white people born here had.

Indians in tribes had never been recognized as citizens, and they needed some language to exclude those people, and the traditional exceptions of children of ambassadors and invading armies.

When Sen. Howard said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons," it is clear that he was simply restating three things that meant the same thing:

foreigners,

aliens,

who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

This wasn't a list of 3 different things. But you and other birthers misread it and claim that it was.

As for John Bingham, why don't you give his other quote:

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.

Yes, about how ACTUAL WORDS OF THE JUDGES were not nearly as important as your ‘rationale’ of the case.

No, I gave you the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE JUDGES, who said that the EXACT SAME RULE had always applied. First, in England. Then, in the Colonies. Then, in the United States after the Revolution. Then, in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."

Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."

And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.

All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.

Again, your 'rationale'. I showed exact quotes in context with sources and you reply is - "That isn't what they really meant"

No, you didn't provide the context. Nor did you even source the first quote to Senator Jacob Howard.I did that.

I also provided the context, which was that they were debating first the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and then the 14th Amendment.

I can even come up with more context if you like, because I have read up on these quotes as well.

It turns out that that quote was made by Senator Howard after the following exchange, which took place during a Senate session in which Howard was present:

Senator Fessenden: "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country."

Senator Wade: "The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington."

Senator Howard was there, but he made no objection to that definition.

And shortly AFTER Howard made his statement (which, again, does not include the word "AND" between the 2nd and 3rd clauses, indicating that is not a LIST of 3 separate things, but a RESTATEMENT of the same thing 3 times), Senator Conness of California had this to say:

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

So Senator Conness says the law will declare that children born in the United States of Chinese, non-citizen parents will be citizens.

This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to your obvious misinterpretation of Howard's words. Not surprisingly, he makes no objection at all.

Why not? It's obvious. He wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

Neither the grammar of his sentence, nor the exchange that came before his quote, nor the discussion that came after his quote, support your interpretation.

So once again, you're twisting quotes.

Yes, and they are citizens by birth BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS!

No, that's not what Bingham says.

He says, "Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens."

The fact is, his earlier quote - the one you quoted, while falsely accusing me of "cherry picking," was said in the same context as that of Jacob's quote: And it is clear from reading the debates that the ONLY people they intended to exclude by that language were, 1) the historical exceptions, and 2) INDIANS born in Indian tribes, who were not considered to be members of the United States, but of their tribes.

Jeff Intentionally misconstrues Bingham's meaning.

Jeff Writes:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.

And this is how you know that Jeff Winston is a Deliberate Liar. He takes this Bingham quote from the very page where Bingham clarifies just a little further along. Here is the full quote.

John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

And here is another Bingham quote, in case you think the first one was a misstatement or something.

John Bingham, (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it away from him. "

Will Jeff stop lying about what Bingham meant? I very much doubt it. Next time Jeff quotes Bingham, he is very likely to once more lie by omission.

Watch Jeff's Head explode.

What’s the matter, DL? Reduced to pleading your case by quoting folks who didn’t even start talking about the term “natural born citizen” until 75 years after the Constitution was written, since no real early authorities support your idea of natural born citizenship?

The current subtopic is about how you are willing to deliberately LIE to make your argument. I've noticed you do this with a lot of your quotes, but this time you were caught, hogtied and branded.

Nonetheless, I’m happy enough to have Bingham fu lly quoted, and in context.

Says the man who had the opportunity to do it himself, but deliberately chose to excise the words which show him to be a liar. That you dared to even mention Bingham is only because you thought you could get away with misrepresenting his position.

The MOST you could legitimately claim from the totality of Bingham’s quotes would be that he was unclear or ambiguous.

Oh, so he's ambiguous now? You seemed to think he was quite clear when you were butchering his quotes to support your argument. Now that it has been shown that he DOES NOT support your interpretation, suddenly he is ambiguous?

No, he's very clear, and that's what you can't stand. He is an absolute REBUKE to your theory. Your attempt to lie about what Bingham said needs to be hung around your neck like an albatross.

DURING the deliberation, but NOT of the determination itself.

The Judges said he was a 'citizen of the United States' IN THE DETERMINATION while YOU claim they said he was a natural born citizen.

Of course they did.

The question they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States?" In the end, that was the question they answered.

Do you not understand that the Supreme Court answers the question that is asked?

And do you not understand how legal precedent works? Obviously not.

Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

They examined his situation in great detail, concluding with absolute clarity that for their purposes, the words "citizen" and "subject" were - in their words - PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS.

In other words, we said "citizen," they said "subject." For the purposes of the Court, the two words meant essentially the same thing.

They also said that the EXACT SAME RULE for determining NATURAL BORN SUBJECTHOOD or NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP had always applied.

And they noted that by that rule, the child born on the soil of the country (England, the Colonies, or the United States), whether his parents were citizens or aliens, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT, or a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, whichever term was preferred at the time.

And that decision is BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT, because it was the entire rationale on which their ruling was based.

And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS IN ANY WAY UNCLEAR OR AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

It's all pretty basic.

From a legal standpoint, the decision in Wong finding Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen is made, if not of steel, at least of good, solid, reinforced concrete. And the side comment in Minor is nothing more than tissue paper.

But you and the other birthers hold up the tissue paper and proclaim it to be concrete, and point to the concrete and proclaim it to be tissue paper.

Really.

Again, there is nothing in the slightest unclear or ambiguous about any of this.

BTW - you never told me if you get paid by the word.

I never got around to answering that bit. Unfortunately, I may not have time to answer every word of your nonsense.

Let's be perfectly frank here. You and I both know that the question is a thoroughly dishonest one.

You don't really believe I'm being paid. You simply want to find a way to smear me, since I'm a threat to the fairy tale that you want to believe and promote to other people.

Nonetheless, I'm happy to play your little game. I will give you a perfectly honest answer to your dishonest and unreasonable little question, if you will answer my perfectly reasonable one, which I asked you long before you asked me, and which you have repeatedly and adamantly refused to answer.

If I can demonstrate conclusively that:

1. The phrase in our Constitution isn't just "law of nations," it's "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"

2. Vattel was only ONE writer, out of a bunch, on the "law of nations;"

3. A MUCH better-known writer than Vattel wrote a VERY well known book with an entire chapter entitled, "OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS;"

4. That writer was quoted 16 times by the Founding Fathers for every 1 time that they quoted Vattel;

5. Vattel never said a word about Felonies or the high Seas, and only mentioned Pirates once in his whole book, whereas the far better-known author discussed ALL of the above in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations;

6. Yes, the Founders purchased that author's book for use in the Senate;

then will you admit that Vattel probably was NOT the source of the mention of "law of nations" in our Constitution?

If you will answer that honest and reasonable question, then I will happily answer your dishonest and unreasonable one. I will even tell you, if I'm being paid, how much per word I get.

Pure Alinsky - If you can't refute the facts, change the question.

One of the things that has constantly amazed me is the way that birthers constantly use the dirty, slimy tactics that they accuse others of.

Publicly accusing me and other genuinely careful interpreters of the Constitution of being "paid." Accusations of being a "troll." Accusations of being an "Obama supporter" or "Obot."

Twisting of quotes. Cherry picking of quotes. Misinterpretation of legal decisions - to the point where you insist that two sentences of side comment, which are completely irrelevant to the resolution of the case and are never referred to again (not once, let alone in the final summing-up) are "binding legal precedent," and yet dozens of pages of core rationale are "completely irrelevant" simply because the Justices didn't include the words "natural born" in their final summation of the decision.

The latter, by the way, is a totally blatant handling of the case you like in one way, and a handling of the case you don't like in the absolutely opposite way. It is hypocrisy and case-twisting at its very best.

Bald assertions that your evidence is great, and "no evidence" exists for the position you don't like, even though literally dozens of historical and legal quotes which you can't refute have been produced.

All very "Alinsky," or worse.

There is not one single shred of VIABLE, 3 party evidence from 2 separate threads running for over a week that supports the definition of natural born citizen as having FORIEGN PARENTS, Jeff.

Bull.

What you mean is there's not a single shred of evidence THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT. Now THAT would be an accurate statement.

There's more evidence than what I've produced so far. But what I've produced so far is enough to establish the point with any reasonably unbiased person.

No, he's very clear, and that's what you can't stand. He is an absolute REBUKE to your theory. Your attempt to lie about what Bingham said needs to be hung around your neck like an albatross.

Again, the very MOST you could legitimately say about Bingham is that he is unclear or ambiguous.

By the way, I love how you keep shifting to other points. This, of course, is the typical birther game.

You show what absolute BS point A is, and birthers shift to point B.

Show what absolute BS point B is, and birthers shift to point C.

Show what absolute BS point C is, and birthers shift to point D.

Show what absolute BS point D is, and birthers shift to point E.

You show what absolute BS point E is, and birthers shift back to point A again.

It's all a stupid game.

You've gotten the absolute daylights beaten out of you on the evidence regarding what "natural born citizen" meant among the Founders and Framers, in early America and in the law (Minor and Wong).

So now, having gotten the stuffings kicked out of you everywhere else, you want to try and shift to John Bingham - a man who didn't start talking about natural born citizenship at all until 75 years after the Constitution was written - and pretend that you can make an authoritative case from him.

But you can't, really.

Your entire case with Bingham rests on the assumption that when he said, "not subject to any foreign authority," he included aliens in America in that category. And from the wording, that would seem, on the surface, to be a reasonable assumption.

But NOWHERE does Bingham EVER state that he's referring to anyone other than the traditional exceptions: foreign ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians in tribes.

It is absolutely clear that the discussion in the Senate, at least, was referring ONLY to those people.

And Bingham himself later DROPPED the wording you refer to, substituting instead, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which clearly meant "subject to the laws of the United States." This made it clear, in the 14th Amendment, that the children of non-citizens born here were US citizens at birth.

Which, BY THE WAY, is what Bingham says "natural born citizens" are - CITIZENS AT BIRTH.

Why did Bingham change the wording? Probably because the original wording gave a false impression that the US-born children of aliens weren't citizens.

I don't know offhand, but I suspect that the House debates also raised the question of children born here of regular aliens. I will have to look and see, but I don't know whether I can do so this week.

In any event, the fact that you're even trying to make your case from Bingham, rather than elsewhere, is a sign of how thoroughly most of your BS has already been debunked.

Again, given Bingham's clear equating "citizens at birth" with "natural born citizens," and given that he repeatedly says essentially everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, the MOST you can legitimately claim is that Bingham is unclear or ambiguous.

Meanwhile, you berate me for not including the full context on a single quote, while you excuse yourself for omitting entire quotes, and twisting and misrepresenting most of those you do include.

Here's a Bingham quote you missed:

“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.”

I'll let you figure out exactly when he said that, and supply the context - if you can.

Of course they did.

Non answer to the assertion.

-----

And do you not understand how legal precedent works? Obviously not.

TRANSLATION: You are too stupid to understand.

-----

Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

An odd statement considering you previously admitted in THIS VERY POST;
The question they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States?" In the end, that was the question they answered.

LOL! You contradict yourself.

-----

And that decision is BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT, because it was the entire rationale on which their ruling was based.

The problem that you continue to fail to comprehend is that the 'birth' IN something was not a physical location.....

but a political affiliation

One cannot be born INTO something unless one already has a PRIOR connection to it

That's true for our country:

Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183

AS WELL AS the laws of others:

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
1963 Kenyan Constitution- Chapter 6- Citizenship, Section 87

-----

I do believe this will be my last post to you on this thread.

You have undeniably proven you not only have no true interest in the subject, you are nothing more than an intellectual roadblock to those who do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.