As to the first two, You certainly are. Trying to use that Bastardized version of the Amendment grating citizenship to freed slaves to re-write the qualifications for Presidents and to authorize "Anchor Babies" is exactly what you have been doing.
You and William Brennan are a pair. Liberal revisionist bullsh*t artists.
Your opening post to me in 2013 accused me of sophistry on a subject I simply know more than you.
You know less about it than me. You know a bunch of crap that is absolutely wrong, and you are too stupid to let people show you when and where it went wrong, and for what reasons. You are the quintissential Liberal @$$ that Reagan meant when he said:
The Trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so."
You know more CRAP than me. That's what You know.
Trying to use that Bastardized version of the Amendment grating citizenship to freed slaves to re-write the qualifications for Presidents Was Jacob Howard, draftsman of the 14th Amendment language at issue, a "liberal" when he stated:
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).
Was James F. Wilson the "learned friend" of John Bingham a "liberal" when he stated:
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."
Was Justice Sandford, writing in 1845 in Lynch v. Clarke a "liberal?" Rawle in 1827? Kent in 1825? St. George Tucker in 1803? Z. Swift in 1795?
All of these learned men speak to the same principle. (It must be time for a LARGE photo of Bingham about now, right? To make you feel better?)
And, DumbDumb, you still haven't answered: what did the 39th Congress means when it stated it was merely declaring "existing law" on birth citizenship? What was the existing law, if other than what was articulated by these men I've cited? It couldn't be the "citizen parent" rule you espouse, because the slaves would not have been citizens even under the Amendment.
You need to stick to engineering. You've been proven incompetent as to history and law.