It would be harder to find stuff you said in support of your argument which is true. Your entire Modus operandi is to post all sorts of stuff which may happen to be true, but which does not support your argument. You claim it as supporting your argument, and that is what turns it into a lie. It is a lie by misdirection.
You also lie by omission. For an example of you doing this, I point everyone's attention to message number 248 in this thread.
Jeff posts an excerpt of a statement by John Bingham, one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment. Jeff Presents John Bingham as supporting Jeff's argument that merely being born inside our borders is enough to make one a citizen. Jeff INTENTIONALLY cuts out the further commentary from John Bingham in which he explicitly states that Jeff's theory is not correct. This is how Jeff posted it.
Jeff Wrote:
As for John Bingham, why don't you give his other quote:“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.
Here is the rest of the quote which Jeff left out, and which completely destroys Jeff's argument.
Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
Oh, yeah. You can’t.
I just did. Deal with it.
Or at least give some of the salient part of it, like this:
As for your two other quotes:
...“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham
Once again, you do what birthers always do: Take evidence that SEEMS to support your case, and present it as "definitive."
Both quotes misrepresent what the people who said them understood natural born citizens to be.
...As for John Bingham, why don't you give his other quote:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
So in the very post where you claim I "lied" by not giving the full quote, the reason I was presenting other things Bingham said was because YOU repeatedly leave out Bingham's OTHER words that I brought forward.
And in fact, in that very same post I actually quoted Bingham saying, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
So I really didn't even do what you accused me of doing, because I included virtually those exact same words from Bingham. Now if I had, it would've only been a slight omission, not a "lie." But I actually included a quote from Bingham virtually identical to that one IN THAT EXACT POST.
So THANKS for illustrating to everyone what a liar you are. You've made my case quite eloquently enough.
Mmmmm. Let's see.
Let's go with a selection from that same thread, where you claimed:
A) that "the Initial drafts of Article II... was submitted by Alexander Hamilton" and which required that one be merely "born a citizen"
False. Hamilton did not submit "the initial drafts of Article II" to the Convention. He did a presentation in which he submitted some ideas, but no initial draft of Article II. And his presentation, according to the notes, contained no mention of an eligibility requirement at all.
The "born a citizen" language you mention came from Hamilton's notes which he gave to Madison at the END of the Convention, after the discussion was all over. Those notes represent Hamilton's private ideas of what he had decided, during the course of the deliberations, that he wanted in a Constitution. They were never presented to the Convention at all.
B) This (the language "born a citizen") was "voted down in favor of the current language."
False. It wasn't "voted down." There's no evidence any language was ever presented to the Convention except for "natural born citizen."
So there we have two very clear, very specific claims by you, which are absolutely false. In the same thread in which you also FALSELY accused me of "lying."
So that's 3 known falsehoods from you, in just one single thread. You've spun plenty more BS than that, but I think that should do just to illustrate the point.