Replies

"Jacob M. Howard merely changed the first sentence."

Better a vision problem than a comprehension problem. The first sentence is the Citizenship Clause. It did not exist prior to his addition of it.

Read your own reference, Dave. It is the play-by-play description of the moment that Senator Howard inserted that clause into the Amendment. It is the absolutely official and incontrovertible proof that Bingham did not write it.

"During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Oooohhh, yes, you have a serious comprehension problem. Go back and read your own reference. Read it carefully. Pay attention to specifically what the words are that Senator Howard asked to be inserted, and where he asked for them to be inserted.

Q: What was inserted?

A: The entire sentence, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Q: Where was it inserted?

A: After the words, "Section One."

Squirm as you might, Dave, the record there is clear. Senator Howard wrote and inserted the entire Citizenship Clause, not just the little part you think he did. Your own reference, which is the official record of the proceedings, proves it. It's right there in black an white.

Now... to your bastardization of English grammar:

Think for a second about the whole comment by Senator Howard. All "four distinct people" you assert he is talking about are being discussed at the moment of birth. It was this:

"The 14th amendment 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 person."

If (as you contend) he is talking about "four distinct people," then you must be also be saying that:

1. You must be claiming that "foreigners" and "aliens" are two different things. But they're not. They are perfect synonyms as any thesaurus will show you. So we already know that he using at least that one comma to separate two synonyms for the same kind of person, not two different kinds of people.

2. You must be claiming that "foreign ministers" can be born already being foreign ministers. Because the fourth "distinct person" found here is "foreign ministers," not "the families of foreign ministers."

Now as amusing as the image of a three day old foreign minister might be, I'm pretty sure that's not what the Senator had in mind.

So, we know here that the "or" is not separating two different kinds of people, it is operating two different kinds of families; i.e. those of ambassadors and those of foreign ministers including them together with the conjunction "or." There are not four anything here. There are three: aliens, foreigners and families of foreign diplomats.

So, knowing that foreigners and aliens (separated by a comma) mean the same thing, and knowing that the third thing (families of foreign diplomats) is also only seperated by a comma and not a conjunction there is only one grammatically correct way to understand his statement.

Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats.

And this is (by the way) exactly how every court since has explicitly understood "under the jurisdiction" to mean.

So, to be correct your example should be:

Those who have 1 dollar, 4 quarters, 100 cents or pennies, but will include every other number of cents.

I provided you a link as proof but you refuse to read it.

John Bingham, the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bingham had repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

ON MISREADING JOHN BINGHAM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps you should inform the Yale Law school and the Yale Law Journal that they are in error.

I suppose it's time for the Slaughtering of a Wigg... Since you like semantic games. Here's the proof what DaveTelsa says is true and one with no wiggle-room for you...or is that squirming:

- - - - - - - -

"MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

83 U.S. 36

Slaughterhouse Cases [*]

-Snip-

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

-end snip-

How do you like them apples... I've got more! And we wonder how people can still argue that Obama is an NBC.