You've never looked up the primary sources. You can't have ever read Wilson's comments in context (nor anyone else's) or else you wouldn't be citing them. You're lazy; that's why it's easy to toy with you.
His opinion still has zero provenance to the men who knew the correct answer
LOL. You were all gung-ho about citing the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. Now that I've shown you're way off base, you shift tack and claim his opinion lacks provenance?
Who, btw, in any of the debates in the 39th Congress on citizenship is citing to any of the authorities whose views you assert have provenance? The ones I'm seeing cited are the likes of Blackstone, James Kent, William Rawle, and the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke." Your supposed "sources with provenance" are absent.
Face it, your oft-stated claim that Horace Gray's opinion erred by not adequately considering the legislative history now lies dead like road-kill rotting in the summer sun. Howard, Trumbull, Wilson and others clearly advocated the view that Gray embraced. You can selectively sample and truncate quotes all day, my statement remains true.
which is pretty much the only sort of people you've got on your side
I've got the authors of the Civil Rights Act (Trumbull) and the draftsman of the 14 Amendment citizenship clause (Howard) squarely on my side. Plus Wilson (whose view is in no way explicitly challenged by Bingham). Your appeal to the legislative history is clearly premised on your merely finding stuff others and put on the internet and believing that told the story.
Not with you anyway, and not so much anymore, but I have spent enough hours perusing the Congressional Globe that i'm tired of looking at it. I vaguely remembered there was some problems with some of them, but it certainly wasn't worth the trouble to wade through that again.
LOL. You were all gung-ho about citing the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. Now that I've shown you're way off base, you shift tack and claim his opinion lacks provenance?
I've never claimed that any of these men had Provenance, they are merely repeating whatever they've been told over the years. This is one reason why I insist you cannot get an accurate understanding of the issue by quoting people who were nearly a century later.
All the people who would know the correct answers were alive back in 1787. People who were not delegates or legislators during this era, really have only hearsay to inform their expertise.
Who, btw, in any of the debates in the 39th Congress on citizenship is citing to any of the authorities whose views you assert have provenance? The ones I'm seeing cited are the likes of Blackstone, James Kent, William Rawle, and the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke." Your supposed "sources with provenance" are absent.
Yes, interesting, isn't it? The very people who know the CORRECT answer are ignored, and people like Rawle are cited. I believe I know exactly why this is so, and I sent MammaTexan my answer to this question last week.
I bet you have absolutely no idea why this is so, and just assume that the opposing view is so inconsequential that none of them were aware of it.
But see here, this state of affairs begs the question. If "Birth on the Soil" is all that is necessary to impart US Citizenship to any child, then pray tell, why were they creating a piece of legislation to accomplish this thing which supposedly existing law already did?
What was it that Senator Trumbull said?
"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."If Jus Soli was the law of the land, why make a Jus Soli law?