No it didn't. It was just elaboration on what Madison had already said. It was just added detail, and of no great significance.
And that's the problem--you can't see anything outside your own head.
No one thinks with another's mind. They think with their own. And this is a surprise to you?
It couldn't possibly be that they know as much as or more than you do about the issue and came to a reasoned, honest conclusion.
Having some understanding of how courts operate, and having the knowledge that they have not addressed the evidence on my side of the issue, it is a safe bet that the courts are in error. That a precedent driven court system flies into the ground is not surprising to me.
Again, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Wickard v Fillburn, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and so forth tells us the court system is deeply screwed up. Why you seem to think they are infallible is beyond my understanding.
No, they must have been compromised or doing someone else's bidding or had a political axe to grind.
The Evidence indicates this is a plausible explanation.
Somebody else truncates a quote? They're a font+5 liar. You truncate a quote? "It was irrelevant." It all comes down to "reality is what I say it is."
And here you go acting like a prick again. The part Jeff Winston truncated is the part which absolutely contradicts his argument. It was the essential part of the quote. The part that brings clear understanding of the man's position.
The part I didn't bother to quote (but posted the link for) is merely further detail on what Madison had already said. It did not change the meaning of his statement, and it did not create a false understanding of his position.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did. Your effort had nothing to do with any real point, you just wanted an excuse to pretend I had done the same thing. It was an effort by you to create a "tit for tat", because your buddy was caught red-handed twisting Bingham's words and you wanted revenge.
Sorry if I'm a pr*ck for pointing that out.
No you're not, you're sorry that you couldn't make the accusation stick. As far as i'm concerned, the "prick" appellation is an accurate response for such an attempted deceit.
No, it doesn't bring clear understanding, because he provided no definition of "not subject to the jurisdiction, etc."
Clarification of what he meant is to be found in his other comments, and the comments of other Representatives, including some that were made while he was in the room, which he never objected in the slightest to.
Aside from which, I had already duly quoted a statement upthread from Bingham that was PRACTICALLY VERBATIM the same as the one you called me a "liar" for not including in one particular specific post.
Aside from which, you had already produced such statements so many times (always leaving out the full context of the comments from other Representatives, and always leaving out Bingham's other words equating "born a citizen" and "natural born citizen," of course) that any reasonable person would consider those quotes had already been aired.
Fact is, I haven't dodged the full words of Bingham or anybody else. I'm the one who's posted most of what early authorities had to say about natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility. It certainly hasn't come from you, because the vast majority of what was said doesn't agree with your BS claims.
The part I didn't bother to quote (but posted the link for) is merely further detail on what Madison had already said. It did not change the meaning of his statement, and it did not create a false understanding of his position.
Ha! The part you left out was certainly relevant to the meaning of what Madison was saying, and not in a way that was favorable to what you were trying to claim. Possibly even more importantly, you left out the entire context of Madison's comments, which shows that it wasn't that the Founders hated the entire common law and were trying to get rid of it at all costs, it was that some of the Founders were greatly disturbed that they DIDN'T find themselves able to incorporate the common law into our national law pretty much wholesale, because they feared that vitally important civil rights that were included in it were being left out of our national law.
Your point, essentially, was that the Founders hated England so much they rejected every common law principle. That's rubbish, and it's shown to be rubbish by THE CONTEXT THAT YOU (purposefully?) LEFT OUT.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did.
No. He came along with a "transparent attempt" to call you out for your obvious hypocrisy.
By the way, the documentation on this only gets clearer and clearer.
I for one am continuing to do research, and it only becomes clearer.
Your claim that “natural born citizen” requires both being born on US soil, and having citizen parents when you’re born, is absolute, total, complete BS.
And there’s no real ambiguity about that in history. There are a few people who actually did maintain otherwise - a VERY, VERY few - but most of those really didn’t know what they were talking about, and the extremely few who did were completely overruled by far more authoritative figures.
So you can keep slinging your BS is you want, but it’ll only keep getting debunked. And every debunking from here on out will only get clearer and stronger.
Because you said so, right? And I'm obviously wrong for thinking it provided important context. I notice you didn't even think it was worth asking what context I thought it provided. That's what I mean by your inability to see anything outside your own head.
The Evidence indicates this is a plausible explanation.
There is no "Evidence" that any of the courts have been compromised except for the fact that they disagree with you.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did.
Don't flatter yourself. I've been reading your Nerf "hammering" of Jeff for weeks, on multiple threads, and haven't said a word. I was just amused that the guy who was jumping up and down screaming "Gotcha!" because someone truncated a quote, ended up doing the same thing himself. The point of the advice about motes and beams in your eye isn't to compare whose is bigger.