Replies

What’s the matter, DL? Reduced to pleading your case by quoting folks who didn’t even start talking about the term “natural born citizen” until 75 years after the Constitution was written, since no real early authorities support your idea of natural born citizenship?

Nonetheless, I’m happy enough to have Bingham fully quoted, and in context.

The MOST you could legitimately claim from the totality of Bingham’s quotes would be that he was unclear or ambiguous.

Say what you will, he has just DEFINED “natural born citizen,” according to his understanding of the term. He says that CITIZENS BY BIRTH are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

This is a CLEAR and DIRECT contradiction to your claim.

Let me ask you a question here. Did Bingham say that black people born within the Republic were natural born citizens?

Reduced to pleading your case by quoting folks who didn’t even start talking about the term “natural born citizen” until 75 years after the Constitution was written, since no real early authorities support your idea of natural born citizenship?

There is not one single shred of VIABLE, 3 party evidence from 2 separate threads running for over a week that supports the definition of natural born citizen as having FORIEGN PARENTS, Jeff.

Unless you want to try to warp the NATURALIZATION acts as to somehow making natural-born citizens.....again.

-----

Pure Alinsky - If you can't refute the facts, change the question.

What’s the matter, DL? Reduced to pleading your case by quoting folks who didn’t even start talking about the term “natural born citizen” until 75 years after the Constitution was written, since no real early authorities support your idea of natural born citizenship?

The current subtopic is about how you are willing to deliberately LIE to make your argument. I've noticed you do this with a lot of your quotes, but this time you were caught, hogtied and branded.

Nonetheless, I’m happy enough to have Bingham fu lly quoted, and in context.

Says the man who had the opportunity to do it himself, but deliberately chose to excise the words which show him to be a liar. That you dared to even mention Bingham is only because you thought you could get away with misrepresenting his position.

The MOST you could legitimately claim from the totality of Bingham’s quotes would be that he was unclear or ambiguous.

Oh, so he's ambiguous now? You seemed to think he was quite clear when you were butchering his quotes to support your argument. Now that it has been shown that he DOES NOT support your interpretation, suddenly he is ambiguous?

No, he's very clear, and that's what you can't stand. He is an absolute REBUKE to your theory. Your attempt to lie about what Bingham said needs to be hung around your neck like an albatross.