Back in August, 2013, you made the usual Birther claim that Wong Kim Ark was just about the 14th amendment ("You Also completely ignore that the court Invokes the 14th amendment as the governing law"), a variant of your earlier claim "[WKA] never uses the term 'natural born citizen." To that I gave you a detailed lesson showing how Horace Gray analyzed "natural born citizen" and "born . . . in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean the same thing..
Your reply? One syllable: "Meh." Yeah, you knew you'd just been set straight.
You are first a liar
A baseless charge, given I document every significant legal and historical point I make. But try to substantiate your charge: show the statement I made that was a knowing inaccuracy. Like I said, we both know you can posture, but you can't deliver. This has "DiogenesLamp Fail" written all over it already.
You need to learn what a fallacy
I know. And showing a consensus of authorities writing on the topic of their expertise isn't one of them. You manage even to get wrong the argumentative crutch you have to keep using to run away from your substantive fails. Quite amazing.
And speaking of logical fallacies, try looking up ad hominem. That's another frequent one in your arsenal.
You really need to go find some children to argue with
I need not seek when right in front of me here I've got an immature, petulant child calling me all sorts of names. "BWWAAAAHHHH, he's demolishing my pet argument about John Bingham by showing the Congress looked to all these jus soli sources to state the American law!!! Bwwwaaahhh!!! And citing James Madison makes my "two birth argument look silly! Bwaaahhhhhhh!! His guys all say the 'grandfather clause' was for the foreign-born like Hamilton; and I've got no one to say it was meant for George Washington!! Bwwaahhhhh. I don't want to play in his sandbox any more. He's a meanie!!!! BWwwaaahhhh!!!"
This has been about sources -- who's got them for support; whose sources actually were recognized as pertinent to this topic.
Now, when the 39th Congress was in the process of drafting the first of the two most significant pieces of legislation ever, the House Judiciary committee chair gave a summary of the existing U.S. law on birth-citizenship. And what authorities were cited to the Congress: Blackstone, Kent, Rawle, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), William Rawle, the Naturalization Act St. George Tucker described as "accordant" with Blackstone. These among many others.
Now, by contrast, who WASN'T cited to the Congress on the matter of birth-citizenship: Vatttel, G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Wilson, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall, Samuel Roberts.
And when the SCOTUS argued and presented both sides of the first and greatest case on birth citizenship (Wong Kim Ark), which authorities were cited by the majority: Coke, Blackstone, Joseph Story, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Among a host of others.
Now which authorities weren't cited as to birth citizenship, not even by Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent urging Vattel supply the rule of decision: G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall, Samuel Roberts.
So in the two great nineteenth century discussion on birth citizenship -- one in Congress; one in the Supreme Court -- it reads like a "Who's Who" of the very sources I've been putting forth.
Your proffered sources? They don't even get an invitation to either ball.
Now, why is this one might ask? Was the House Judiciary Committee Chair just sleeping on the job? Was Chief Justice Fuller just ignorant of Constitutional history? That's a hard explanation to sustain. So one looks for an alternative explanation for why someone else now raises these sources when they weren't raised then. That's an easy one: those sources simply aren't ones that were recognized as speaking to the topic, and DiogenesLamp is just inept when it comes to history and law.
Yeah, that explanation works.