The Constitution did not change that rule, and it didn't give Congress the power to change it.
So the same rule applied before the Constitution, and it applies now.
Incidentally, at least two courts have specifically declared that this was the situation.
Chancellor Sandford, in Lyncy v. Clarke (1844) said this was exactly the situation. The Supreme Court confirmed Sandford's ruling, at the national level, in 1898 in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Once again, that Court said the same rule had always applied. First, in England. Then, in the Colonies. Then, in the United States after the Revolution. Then, in the United States after the Constitution was established.
Elsewhere, I went into some detail about the ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark. You need to read that post. Because not only does it represent an ACCURATE reading of that case, it also represents the reading of that case that is accepted by every significant legal authority in history since that time.
So in other words, it is both CLEAR and (except for a few birthers, almost all of whom have no real legal expertise) UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED that this understanding of US v. Wong Kim Ark is correct.
As for your two other quotes:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
“[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.
The debates in Congress had to do with making sure black people born in America had the rights of natural born citizens that they were due as natural born citizen. The same rights that white people born here had.
Indians in tribes had never been recognized as citizens, and they needed some language to exclude those people, and the traditional exceptions of children of ambassadors and invading armies.
When Sen. Howard said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons," it is clear that he was simply restating three things that meant the same thing:
foreigners,
aliens,
who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
This wasn't a list of 3 different things. But you and other birthers misread it and claim that it was.
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.
Yes, about how ACTUAL WORDS OF THE JUDGES were not nearly as important as your ‘rationale’ of the case.
-----
Both quotes misrepresent what the people who said them understood natural born citizens to be.
Again, your 'rationale'. I showed exact quotes in context with sources and you reply is - "That isn't what they really meant"
Pu-LEASE!
-----
Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.
Yes, and they are citizens by birth BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS!
Like I said...have a nice day.
Jeff Writes:
“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.
And this is how you know that Jeff Winston is a Deliberate Liar. He takes this Bingham quote from the very page where Bingham clarifies just a little further along. Here is the full quote.
John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
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.
And here is another Bingham quote, in case you think the first one was a misstatement or something.
John Bingham, (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
"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; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it away from him. "
Will Jeff stop lying about what Bingham meant? I very much doubt it. Next time Jeff quotes Bingham, he is very likely to once more lie by omission.
Watch Jeff's Head explode.
