Jeepers. Finally!
But every point in it has been well addressed before.
In fact, every point has been addressed AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THOROUGHLY.
In short: Every point DL makes in 657 is simply just BS. And it's debunked BS.
1. He starts out with a long harangue about how I'm "wrong." Since that's the entire commentary - an allegation that I'm "wrong" - no further comment on that is needed.
2. He says I'm wrong when I say that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment considered that the citizenship provision of that law was simply declaratory of the law as it was. But that's what they said. We've talked about this before. I've posted the quotes before. He ignores them.
3. He says I'm wrong when I say that George Washington was a natural born citizen. I addressed that in great detail in post 626. As he does so often, he simply ignores the points that prove his BS wrong, and reasserts the same disproven BS.
4. He sets up a false dichotomy, claiming that John Marshall and Bushrod Washington "beat" Rawle as authorities.
But as I've gone over before, Marshall and Washington in the case he cites (The Venus) say nothing at all about natural born citizenship. The phrase "natural born" doesn't even occur anywhere in their opinion (anyone can look this up). And yes, Marshall quotes Vattel, even the passage birthers like, but he doesn't quote him on natural born citizenship. He doesn't even quote the translation that says "natural born citizens!" He quotes a more accurate translation of the same passage, for Vattel's opinion on how exactly to regard an acknowledged US citizen who's living in a country we're at war with.
So Marshall and Washington in the case he cites say NOTHING about natural born citizenship.
Even worse, Chief Marshall not only doesn't support DiogenesLamp - he CONTRADICTS him.
Marshall wrote to James Bayard that he found no error at all in Bayard's Exposition of the Constitution, except one minor point: Congress didn't need permission from the States to build postal and military roads. They already had it.
Other than that, Bayard's exposition was spot on.
And Bayard was CRYSTAL CLEAR that it did NOT take both birth on US soil and citizen parents to be a natural born citizen and eligible for President. Being born a citizen was enough.
So Marshall actually CONTRADICTS DiogenesLamps' bullcrap.
He then goes off on Bingham, who has also been discussed many times before.
5. He once again falsely accuses me of deliberately editing Bingham's words to not include that Bingham said "subject to no foreign sovereignty," even though in the exact same thread I had PREVIOUSLY specifically included a virtually identical quote.
6. As for Bingham himself, DiogenesLamp misrepresents his words. I have covered Bingham in quite a bit of detail in the past, and explained fairly well why he wasn't saying what DL claims, although not as comprehensively all in one place as is possible.
I've started work on such a comprehensive analysis of Bingham, but it's going to be pretty darn long. And I'm far from finished.
Not that I really need to write the thing in the first place. I have discussed Bingham so much before already. But I'm still working on it, nonetheless, and I'll probably eventually finish it.
And that's the entire "substance" of his post.