Replies

“I come down on two different sides from you because I am being consistent. As far as I can tell, you are contradicting yourself.”

No I am not. You have completely discarded the framers
intent (sort of like disregarding the Federalist Papers)
regarding Dred Scott.

You have completely have disregarded the framers intent
by trying to minimize and discredit their intent even
though the original intent is a matter of record.

You try to discredit Bingham by the simple change of 6 words (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and you try
to change Foreigners, aliens, families of foreign diplomats to Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats to suit
your purpose. It's just your opinion and much has been written by the framers to show that their intent was
otherwise. This is why it took half a century for the courts to change the meanings into something they were not. Just wait till the framers were dead and claim they meant
something else. Like committing an illegal act to gain citizenship. The framers must be rolling over in their
graves. In essence you are doing exactly what Roe v. Wade did.

"No I am not. You have completely discarded the framers intent (sort of like disregarding the Federalist Papers) regarding Dred Scott."

Nonsense. I care about the framers intent just as much as you do. But the Constitution does not mean what it does not say. And Bingham was not a framer of Article II, nor of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

"You have completely have disregarded the framers intent by trying to minimize and discredit their intent even though the original intent is a matter of record."

I am the only one in this thread who has posted a single comment by any of the framers regarding what they thought of jus sanguinis vs. jus solis. And James Madison rather unambiguously came down on my side of the argument. As such, I am the only one here actually defending whatever "original intent is a matter of record."

"You try to discredit Bingham by the simple change of 6 words (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and you try to change Foreigners, aliens, families of foreign diplomats to Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats to suit your purpose."

The latter is not a "change," it is simply proper English. And the former is simply assigning credit where it is due.

"It's just your opinion and much has been written by the framers to show that their intent was otherwise."

Oh? So I guess then that you can do what Red Steel and others cannot? Show me the writings or record of a single framer that says "natural born citizen" means born on US Soil to two citizen parents? Please?

When I asked Red Steel, he said it wasn't necessary. I took that to mean he couldn't. Maybe you can do better?

And... here's a really good hint:

Neither Emmerich de Vattel or John Bingham were framers of the Constitution.

"In essence you are doing exactly what Roe v. Wade did."

Right back at you. You are the only one of us trying to twist the Constitution into saying something it does not say. If you can insert a requirement for "two citizenship parents" then abortionists can insert a "right to privacy."

You need to reflect on the first rule of holes.