[BlackElk]

The Congressional enactment of 1952 gives rise to the further question as to whether Congress has any authority whatsoever or any rational reason whatsoever to distinguish between four years' and five years' prior US residency after the age of 14 and as part of ten years' minimum residency in the United States on the part of a citizen such as Ms. Dunham. It seems as unlikely that any court today would validate such a distinction any more than it would validate a distinction based upon the mother having red hair or being right-handed or having worked on a farm or whatever.

The remarks of Mr. Bingham and of Senator Pinckney, by well-recognized and objective judicial principles of statutory interpretation are mere "legislative history" relevant and cognizable by the courts ONLY where there is some facial ambiguity in the language of the enactment itself (i.e. the 14th Amendment). Otherwise the law (the 14th Amendment in this case) says what it means and means what it says regardless of Congressional intent.

Also, there are privately employed American citizens who are effectively permanently residing in other nations who nonetheless enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. The execrable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., was born in Paris, France, to parents who were American citizens in Paris on business. The late George Romney was born in Mexico in circumstances suggesting his parents' intention to remain there in protest of Congressional requirements that Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition ofd admission as a state to the Union. Each ran unsuccessfully for President but citizenship was not seriously questioned in either case.

[Sola Veritas]

“Otherwise the law (the 14th Amendment in this case) says what it means and means what it says regardless of Congressional intent.”

Ignoring “original intent” is the reason so many good things have been preverted to bad things in regards to both the constitution and laws enacted.