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.
And once again, you bald-face lie. There is no ambiguity in John Bingham's statement, and your attempt to assert that it isn't clear, is in fact another blatant lie. It cannot be made MORE CLEAR. What does he have to do? Draw you a f***ing diagram?
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.
John Bingham is explicitly acknowledging the Jus Sanguinus Allegiance in regards to citizenship.
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.
And here you go again, Still calling your collection of post hoc LAWYERS "Authorities" on what the Delegates enacted into law. Virtually nothing from the Delegates themselves, but we sure get to hear what the LAWYERS thought regarding events to which they did not take part!
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.
And you are utterly full of sh*t. Let us examine your claim. This is what I posted.
I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States.
And this is what I omitted.
The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject.
And this is what I posted:
If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
And this is what I omitted.
An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations.
The Green parts mean almost the exact f***ing same thing, and the blue parts mean almost the exact f***ing same thing as well. They are so close in meaning, it is obvious to anyone that you and "ha ha" are intentionally fabricating your "horror". I knew immediately that "ha ha" was simply trying to project fake outrage, and that's why I said "prick." The left out parts were redundant. The only part that isn't is this:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
Which I regarded at the time as neither supporting or opposing my point, which is that the Common Law of England was not adopted en masse. We kept bits and pieces, and threw out the rest. If anything, this omitted passage FURTHER supports my point! What was Mason complaining about? THAT WE WEREN'T KEEPING THE COMMON LAW!!!!!
So once more, I have demonstrated to any rational person that you two are so full of fake outrage you should go audition for a Democrat Protest event!
No. He came along with a "transparent attempt" to call you out for your obvious hypocrisy.
Man, have you have got some real chutzpah. It takes a lot of brass to lie so shamelessly, but we've become accustomed to this sort of deceit from you.