Is this correct? This is what the author of the 14th Amendment said:
John Bingham:
"confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"
find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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 . . ."
Congressman John Bingham v. mlo
Who to believe?
"I didn't just provide my opinion. I provided a decision by the United States Supreme Court that specified what was excluded by "under the jurisdiction".
"Is this correct? This is what the author of the 14th Amendment said:..."
"Congressman John Bingham v. mlo"
"Who to believe?"
Misrepresent things much?
It is not the congressman vs. me. As I clearly stated, I provided an opinion of the United States Supreme Court.
And as you also know because it has been pointed out many times, the quote from the congressman is not the law. It is simply a quote from a congressman's speech. The congressman was clearly wrong since what he says was clearly written in the constitution is not there. Most of us know that congressmen are not perfect. Not even old dead ones. Most also realize that things they say in speeches are not the same thing as laws.
As the Supreme Court wrote in the quote I already provided, those excluded by the "under the jurisdiction" phrase are the children of diplomats and of invading foreign armies. Anyone else, if born in the US, is a natural born citizen.
Bingham had a very clear understanding of what NBC means in the US. The Obots never seem very interested in quoting him.