Compared to the Court of John Marshall, yes. Goodness, you are idiotic.
It was stated (repeatedly) in the 39th Congress that the citizenship laws were "declaratory of existing law." What in your pea-brain do you think the "existing law" was?
John Bingham makes it clear in two distinct quotes what he thinks existing law means, and it is clearly at odds with what *YOU* think it means, but this is irrelevant. What the Congress thinks is the criteria for "citizen" nearly 100 years after the condition was created is not terribly relevant to the point of what is a "natural " citizen.
Obviously it is not one that needs the 14th amendment, because we had 20 Presidents before that time, and none of them had need of the 14th amendment, because it didn't exist.
Name one instance. I've successfully called your bluff on this a half dozen times in the past. I shall do so again.
No, you talk to yourself in the mirror saying things like "What a good boy I am" and "I am so very very smart!" and other nonsense for which adults have no time to spend.
I think that one of us is going to highlight the other's past failures, by specific reference to specific posts. And the other is going to p*ss and moan a bit more, then retreat.
More like recognize that it is pointless to argue with a fool, and should not be done except for the entertainment it provides. At the moment you are entertaining, but I think that will pass. Only so many times can people see your silly monkey dance before it gets boring.
Nonsequittur. The WKA court (a 19th century court) is not -- by any reasonable classification -- the "modern court," even though there are older courts. You remain an idiot.
John Bingham makes it clear in two distinct quotes what he thinks existing law means, and it is clearly at odds with what *YOU* think it means,
His opinion is not at odds. You just misread him, taking him out of context. Besides, when looking at legislative testimony, the opinions of the draftsmen of the citizenship provisions at issue (in this case, Senators Trumbull (Civil Rights Act) and Howard (14th Amendment) carry the most weight, and they clearly espouse the principle I've argued.
As we saw in the last go-round, Congressmen Wilson (whom you stupidly tried to put in your camp) offered extensive citations to Blackstone and early U.S. writers that "exist law" was jus soli as to the native born. It's fatuous to assert Bingham was disagreeing when he offers no rebuttal to what would (under your assumption) be their contrary opinion. Bingham was in agreement with Wilson, the House's own Judiciary Committee Chair.
CH: Name one instance. I've successfully called your bluff on this a half dozen times in the past. I shall do so again.
DL: No, you talk to yourself in the mirror saying things like "What a good boy I am" and "I am so very very smart!" and other nonsense for which adults have no time to spend.
Yep. Called it. You claim I argue against established facts. I assert you're BS'ing and challenge you to name one instance. Your reply is your typicial silliness.
CH: I think that one of us is going to highlight the other's past failures, by specific reference to specific posts. And the other is going to p*ss and moan a bit more, then retreat.
More like recognize that it is pointless to argue with a fool, and should not be done except for the entertainment it provides. At the moment you are entertaining, but I think that will pass. Only so many times can people see your silly monkey dance before it gets boring.
Yep, called this one, too. You're already doing your posture and dance and trying to find the exit. You know I'm poised to haul out your past fails one by one.
So, hurry, hurry, find that exit.