I just did
-----
So many birther arguments boil down to this: "if they'd meant X, they would have said Y."
Which does nothing to refute the contention that if they possessed the power of determining natural-born citizenship, they WOULD have done so.
-----
Okay, try these: (1) perhaps it was because they believed, as other SCOTUS justices have expressed, that comments made by legislators shouldn't be part of their decision; or (2) perhaps they disagreed with your interpretation of what Bingham meant.
Okay, so the intent of something isn't important [like the intent of the 14th Amendment] unless you say it is[like how the intent of Wong Kim Ark is more important that the decision].
LOL! Double standard, anyone?
-----
I trust their assessment more than your assertion that the decision not only didn't say WKA was NBC but actually said he wasn't.
Which is perfectly within your right. Just remember one thing, though.
When you natural right to self defense is abridged...... when the government redefines the meaning of marriage..... When government decides its 'vested interest' in your children overrides your parental right TO them and that IT gets to determine how much of the money you earn that YOU get too keep.....
Think back on the time someone tried to tell you the Founders never intended to give any branch of government a carte blanche to define the term 'citizen'.
-----
“...there was no such thing as citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state
United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
The appellant purports to accept as sound the position stated as the view of all the justices concurring in the Hague decision. This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgement by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
----
The Natural Law is where our inalienable rights are!
BTW - When was the last time you were asked anything OTHER than 'are you a US citizen'?
I just did
No you didn't! You quoted the Naturalization Act and offered some alternative history scenario, but you haven't offered any documentation that every existing resident of the fledgling US had to appear in court to make an "oath or affirmation" of loyalty in order to be considered citizens. There should be some historical record of that process if it actually happened.
Okay, so the intent of something isn't important [like the intent of the 14th Amendment] unless you say it is[like how the intent of Wong Kim Ark is more important that the decision].
I didn't say anything about the intent of WKA, only its effects. I don't pretend to be a mindreader (which is why I stay away from confident assertions about what other people "would have done").