It is NOT the considered opinion of "every genuine early American legal authority and source close to the Founders and Framers ". That you keep characterising it as such is a consequence of Your habit of lying about it. You ignore Marshall, you ignore Washington, you ignore Monroe, you ignore David Ramsey, you simply ignore anyone who doesn't parrot back that stupid British crap.
Heh. Next time you have a serious medical condition, I have a group of juju doctors you can go to. They don't have any medical training, but they've got some cool medical theories, and make extensive use of psychedelics. So the treatment is very enjoyable.
In the legal system, it is the jujus who run things. Abortion? 14th amendment. Prayer in Schools? 14th Amendment. Wickard v Fillburn? 14th Amendment. Anchor babies? 14th amendment. Birth Tourism? 14th amendment.
That you even compare the legal industry with the medical is a demonstration of how ridiculous you are.
A rule for who is and is not a citizen is hardly the "chains of feudalism."
If the rule says *I* OWN anyone born on my land, then yes it is.
Do you sell cars in your day job?
No, I design and repair complex electronic control systems. What do YOU do?
Anybody can look up my points and see that they are true.
They can look up and see you endlessly proclaiming them to be true, which is a very different thing. But actually true? No, they can't see that because they aren't. If they were so obviously true, why do you need to lie about them? Why do you have to distort John Bingham's position to support your argument?
Anybody can look up my exposes of your numerous fallacious claims and see that they are, in fact, fallacious.
Not anybody, you have to be a brain dead/brain washed retard. Only the gullible believe the founders were foolish enough to invent "anchor babies."
So the more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone who is determinedly pushing attacking quack theories.
There, fixed it for ya.
It should be obvious even to you by now that these theories and claims will never go anywhere. Not only will no court in the land ever rule in favor of these false claims, no major conservative Constitutional body (such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will ever support them.
Such was once said about slavery, and thank God those fools were WRONG. (just like you.)
And even in the tiny corner in which you've been able to repeat the false claims, you are thoroughly embattled. There are a few people who still believe them, but not anybody who actually does the research and reading and looks at the evidence of history and law with a cool head.
Embattled? I hardly see any opposition anywhere. You are probably the best your side has to offer, but most of your supporters are people like Kansas58 or douginthearmy. You deserve them.
No, what we are is shouted down in the mainstream of the Press and the legal system. The Press hates any challenge to their boyfriend, and the legal system hates any challenge to their "precedents."
Neither is proof that they are correct, but it is enough to convince them to believe with blind faith and to attack or dismiss those who don't.
I haven't ignored any of them.
Fallacy: A quote from John Marshall in the 1814 Supreme Court case of The Venus shows that the Supreme Court relied on Vattel for the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
Truth: The Opinion in The Venus doesn’t even contain the words “natural born citizen” at all. Justice Marshall makes reference to Vattel’s book, but it’s a more accurate English translation which says “natives or indigenes” (”indigene” is a word in English as well). And when Marshall cites Vattel, he’s not trying to establish a meaning for “natural born citizen.” He is trying to establish to what degree a citizen of America (natural born or naturalized, it made no difference) who was living and actively participating in the society of England should be respected as an American, and to what degree he should be treated similarly to the Englishmen he was acting like.
Therefore, Marshall’s quote in The Venus contributes absolutely nothing to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in American law.
It's been claimed that Justice Washington also supports the "both/and" theory. He doesn't. Consistent with others such as Marshall who have quoted Vattel as an authority on international relations and international law - but not on domestic citizenship - Washington uses ideas from Vattel and others to consider to what extent a citizen of one country, permanently living in a second country, should be treated as a citizen of the first country, or as a participant, or as a "kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens," in the second.
On the contrary, Marshall supports the well known and completely accepted principle, first articulated by Founder and Framer Alexander Hamilton, that terms in the Constitution ("natural born" is one of these) can be understood in the light of their definitions from English law, since that was where we got our legal terminology:
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
Fallacy: David Ramsay’s treatise on citizenship shows that the Founding Fathers required birth on US soil, plus citizen parents, to make a natural born citizen.
Truth: The overwhelming rejection of David Ramsay’s ideas on citizenship - 36 to 1 - shows that those ideas did not represent our Founding Fathers and early leaders, and that his citizenship doctrine was flat-out wrong.
Why do you have to distort John Bingham's position to support your argument?
Again, I've done no such thing. You're the one who has distorted Bingham's position.
First of all, Bingham's words carry no legal weight whatsoever, since he was simply a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House. Any Congressman can express an opinion.
But you've been reduced to arguing that a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House, 75 years after the Constitution was written, and saying things some things that sound like they may support you, and other things that clearly contradict you, is an authority that "proves" your claim.
Your entire case with Bingham rests on the assumption that when he said, "not subject to any foreign authority," he included aliens in America in that category. And from the wording, that would seem, on the surface, to be a reasonable assumption.
But NOWHERE does Bingham EVER state that he's referring to anyone other than the traditional exceptions: foreign ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians in tribes.
It is absolutely clear that the discussion in the Senate, at least, was referring ONLY to those people.
And Bingham himself later DROPPED the wording you refer to, substituting instead, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which clearly meant "subject to the laws of the United States." This made it clear, in the 14th Amendment, that the children of non-citizens born here were US citizens at birth.
Which, BY THE WAY, is what Bingham says "natural born citizens" are - CITIZENS AT BIRTH.
Why did Bingham change the wording? Probably because the original wording gave a false impression that the US-born children of aliens weren't citizens.
Given Bingham's clear equating "citizens at birth" with "natural born citizens," and given that he repeatedly says essentially everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, the MOST you can legitimately claim is that Bingham is unclear or ambiguous.
“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.”