Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
The New York Court of Chancery case Lynch v. Clarke (and Lynch) (Bernard Lynch v. John Clarke and Julia Lynch) from 1844 is one of the most prescient and important cases dealing with the matter .

Why on earth would we be discussing a state court case as regards Federal citizenship? Apart from that, the Legislature of New York overturned that verdict by passing new law which rendered that decision moot.

Lynch v Clarke is an interesting footnote in history, but it has no bearing on the salient point. The US Federal citizenship did not utilize English Common law. How could it? By English common law, rejecting your status as a subject of the king was strictly forbidden.

8 posted on 08/20/2015 10:26:36 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

It does possess salience.

The point is, and continuing what I was saying yesterday - people born on U.S. soil cannot have their citizenship somehow revoked, even if they were born 1 week ago or 30 years ago or before 1844.

Some were arguing that children born to illegal aliens even recently were never citizens to begin with, and that is false.


14 posted on 08/20/2015 10:45:21 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson