Still my position. What you have is a quibble. John Bingham reiterated the same point with different words in the debate on the 14th.
Too bad for you that Bingham did not offer any words on citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and therefore no words of John Bingham were ratified as part of the citizenship clause.
He understood it to mean just what he explained in the debates on the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1866.
I have long said that the 14th amendment is badly written, and this is a prime example of it. I have also said the original draft of the citizenship portion was much better than what they ended up with, and the messed up version is thanks to Trumbull who learned of temporary allegiance.
But again, this is an example where courts go with strict construction of the words instead of original intent, and that is always wrong.
Clearly this point is important to you, while I don't care at all if it's from the debates on the 14th or the Civil Rights act of 1866.Still my position. What you have is a quibble. John Bingham reiterated the same point with different words in the debate on the 14th.
Too bad for you that Bingham did not offer any words on citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and therefore no words of John Bingham were ratified as part of the citizenship clause.He understood it to mean just what he explained in the debates on the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1866.
You have gone totally unhinged. Please do link, cite and quote your FICTIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE HOUSE DEBATES where John Bingham said anything whatever in the House debate on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The official record of the debates is the Congressional Globe. What is glaringly obvious is that I have read it and you have not.
Congressional Globe, House, June 13, 1866, 39 Cong, 1st sess, pg 3148:
Representatives DEFREES and WRIGHT asked permission to print some remarks upon this question of agreeing to the 14A proposal. Without objection, there requests were granted. The entire proposal was then read, and the vote recorded, yeas 120, nays 32, not voting 32. Bingham voted Aye.
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
Thaddeus Stevens addressed each each section of joint resolution. His comments on the first section as proposed by the Senate are below. Nobody else rose to comment on any section of the joint resolution.
A few words will suffice to explain the changes made by the Senate in the proposition which we sent them.The, first section is altered by defining who are citizens of the United States and of the States. This is an excellent amendment, long needed to settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United States. It declares this great privilege to belong to every person born or naturalized in the United States.
That is all the words said in House debate about the citizenship clause, by anybody. The recorded vote is on the next page near the top of the first column, immediately following the reading of the full 14A, which continued over to page 3149.
Page 3148: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=269
Congressional Globe at the Library of Congress
Page 3149: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=270