Mario Apuzzo has had his *ss handed to him by me and many, many others on multiple occasions. The ONLY erroneous quote that Gray gives, to my knowledge, is that he cites one concurring opinion in Ingliss and treats it as the majority opinion. Big whooop. Apuzzo is an idiot, and it's no surprise you give him credence.
And no where does John Marshall's court support your view. Or are you here again referring to Marshall's dissenting opinion in a case that didn't involve citizenship and which didn't even use the term "natural born citizen." Oh, right, for sure, that tells us a lot about the Court's views on Article II. You just pile on desperate argument upon desperate argument. Now see, this is what I F***ing hate about you. I have beaten other people dogsh*t senseless over this point, but that was years ago,
Your "victories" exist in your mind only. Or do you want to be reminded how you truncated Cong. Wilson's remarks to make him look like he supported your view when in fact he flatly contradicts what you claim.
Hey, I'm happy to let the Bingham part play out. In my prior post, I've already pre-empted your further attempts to misread Bingham. But, play on. About everything you post is easily dissected.
You will perceive any unwillingness to wade through the debates on the 14th amendment and the earlier Civil Rights act of 1866, as a "retreat", instead of what it actually is. A weariness at dealing with ignorant fools who's mouth is bigger than their brains.
I've put the Howard, Trumbull, and Wilson quotes in front of you before, only to have you brush them aside as if Bingham is the only person you will talk about. Howard and Trumbull are the draftsmen of the key provisions under debate, you lunkhead! You don't have to "wade through them." Just read them.
So, yeah, you're repeated running away without having dealt with much of the material I'm adducing that shows you're a fool is a retreat, a cop-out, a fail. Many terms are applicable.
I don't think any thing will suffice but that I beat your f***ing brains out with those two quotes from John Bingham, and make you eat them.
Right, because you're Johnny One-Note here (oops, make that Johnny Two-Note). You've got two excerpts from Bingham that you think support your view and you keep tossing those out ad nauseum. You think that is "beating me over the head." It's more like "bludgeoning me with idiocy?"
And while you're looking for Bingham quotes to beat me with, but sure to meditate on this one:
"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." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"
Not once. He kicks their @$$ over at Dr. Conspiracy every time he goes there.
And no where does John Marshall's court support your view.
In every case he ever dealt with pertaining to this issue.
Hey, I'm happy to let the Bingham part play out. In my prior post, I've already pre-empted your further attempts to misread Bingham.
Really? I must have missed that. What, do you have to have a secret decoder ring to find them or something? My recollection is you tried to dodge the point, but didn't make it.
I've put the Howard, Trumbull, and Wilson quotes in front of you before, only to have you brush them aside as if Bingham is the only person you will talk about. Howard and Trumbull are the draftsmen of the key provisions under debate, you lunkhead! You don't have to "wade through them." Just read them.
I'm not going to rely on what people in 1866 thought about something which was created in 1776, and who had been subjected to Rawle's consequent lying on the issue. I go to the founding era to understand founding era concepts. You want to play in the later half of the 19th century because there you can find people ignorant enough to agree with you, except for Bingham, of course.
This is why I have little patience with you. You are stuck nearly 100 years after the fact, and when many people had forgotten what the words meant. (Apparently not Bingham though.)
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"
Yeah, "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty." Get it right @$$hole. Bingham wasn't as stupid as you.