Replies

You're really going to cover that same old Jeff Winston territory aren't you?

And why wouldn't I? You lost the argument then; you're going to lose the argument now. I've seen your past posts; I know the argument you're going to make, and it's so far following the path I predicted.

Something tells me you've already been presented the rebuttal quotes by Howard, and Bingham, and So forth, but will simply brush them aside.

No, I will explain the supposed "rebuttal" quotes in the context of all of their statements, rather than doing what you do -- extract just the ones you think help you while explaining them together with other statements.

But if you want an example of "brushing aside," look at how you've responded to the discussion in the House during the CRA debate that "existing law" is represented by Kent, Rawle, State v Manuel, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke." These are all authorizes cited by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark. You've been critiquing Gray's opinion on the supposition that what he writes is inconsistent with the Congressional testimony. Hey, earth to DumbDumb: No, it's not. The very same authorities are put forth in the Congress, which blows your critique clear out of the water.

The reason you have to brush these aside and pretend they aren't there while quickly trying distract the discussion to other testimony quite obvious.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said:

And is that saying anything inconsistent with what I've already shown from Howard?

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).

As I've pointed out, the "subjects or citizens" wording makes it very clear that he's alluding to the common law as applicable, respectively, to England and the U.S. And he accordingly makes no reference to any necessity of "citizen parents." And note also he speaks of this "as held by the courts." As he speaks, is there a single court that has issued a holding in a case that citizen parents are necessary for a child born here to be a citizen by birth? No. Is there one that says such are not needed? Yes, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke."

Does what you've now tossed up say anything about citizen parents? No. So this is your first swing-and-miss. It's again, the same error you've made the past two days as to Justice Story and Matthew Bacon:

And of course Bingham. Here he is in 1862:

1862? I've posted from the House discussion in 1866 -- specifically addressed to the citizenship clause -- where the Judiciary Committee Chairman reported existing law as being clearly jus soli as to the native-born (citing to Kent, Rawle, etc.) Bingham's words there are in the context of an entirely different discussion, namely, the emancipation of the slaves. He's have an exchange with Cong. Wright, who's saying in effect "if you emancipate this horde of slaves, where the heck are you going to move them?" To that Bingham's replies in effect "Whose saying anything about moving them? Unquestionably being born here of parents owing now allegiance to any other sovereignty they are citizens, as as citizens they have the right to move - or stay - in whatever state they please."

This simply isn't a discussion in the least focusing on the parameters of birth citizenship. You here make the same logical mistake you make with the Minor -- taking a statement "these persons are unquestionably citizens" to mean as well "a person who is not in that group is thus not a citizen."

Swing-and-miss #2.

And Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson said much the same thing in 1866:

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

OMG, I cannot believe you are trying to pull this stunt. This is serious rake-you-over-the-coals territory.

It's a curious thing that with the prior quotes you gave the reference to the Congressional Record. But this one you don't. Now, one might ask, why is that?

Could it be that Wilson, when taking his complete comment in context TOTALLY BLOWS YOUR VIEW OUT OF THE WATER??? Here it is:

The first section of the bill contains the following declaration concerning citizenship:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color.

This provison, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume, would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word "white." In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of this House who believes that this Government is exclusively a "white man Government." I think this question of sufficient importance to justify me in giving it something more than a mere passing notice.
Blackstone says:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of Englnd: that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it." Sharswood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.

The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."

* * *

On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: 'Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.' I quote this not to claim that it was written concerning a colored persons, but for the purpose of showing how broad the rule is that Mr. Marcy affirmed. Every person born in the United States must include negroes, for they are persons born in the United Sates; and I submit that, under the rule thus laid down, all such persons must be considered to be citizens of the United States.

* * *

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."

This is jaw-dropping stuff. I've been hammering you with the statements of Cong. Lawrence, whose remarks reference and incorporate the report of Cong. Wilson, and your reply is to cite to a truncated quote from Wilson that omits that quotes both Blackstone and William Rawle? And you thought I wouldn't call out your sleight-of-hand?

And siting there is John Bingham, showing no disagreement with any of this. Which shows you're as well ripping Bingham's statements out of context.

Seriously, how stupid are you? Swing, miss, fall-over, get-booed-out-of-stadium

And you think Trumbull helps you? LOL.

"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen.Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

So, there's no shoveling your sources aside; but there is some necessary shoveling of your B***s**t aside. You pile it up rather deep. One can wonder with you if it's just dishonesty, laziness, or stupidity. You present the "Triple Threat." (Oh, I know, claim this is "too long." It's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance.)