And you should read the gyrations he went through before he seized on the final verbiage, which is effectively worse than what they started with.
The Bingham quote in your tagline has nothing to do with th 14th Amendment. It pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
If you say so. I'm not going to look it up because I no longer have the zeal I used to have. I *DO* recall that he said things along the very same lines in the debate on the 14th amendment. I used to quote them a lot.
Obviously, John Bingham was talking about a bill and not about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later.
Be that as it may, the part you quoted from him is absolutely correct, and contrary to your understanding of citizenship. If you are saying he is wrong, where did he get the notion that parents cannot have allegiance to a foreign sovereignty?
Something I try to get people on your side of the debate to understand is that if you were correct, there would be *NO EVIDENCE* to the contrary. We would not be able to cite "authorities" which contradict your claims. They would not exist.
We would not have that book from Pennsylvania declaring that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejects English Common law as the basis of citizenship and declares American Citizenship law comes from Vattel.
It wouldn't exist!
The Bingham quote in your tagline has nothing to do with th 14th Amendment. It pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.If you say so.
NO. Not if I say so.
I'm not going to look it up because I no longer have the zeal I used to have.
I spared you the trouble in my #32. I linked, cited, and quoted the Congressional Globe. Your Bingham quote was highlighted in blue font and underlined. Bingham argued that th Civil Rightsd Act was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.You exhibit precisely that amount of zeal consistently. https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=32#32
I will inform you that the citizenship clause was an amendment initated in the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard. Bingham's draft did not even have a citizenship clause.The Bingham quote in your tagline has nothing to do with th 14th Amendment. It pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In the following three sentences, Bingham argued that the CRA was unconstitutional.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 1866, pg. 1291
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?
Obviously, John Bingham was talking about a bill and not about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later.