Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: RegulatorCountry
Meese is extrapolating a definition for a term that did not exist under English common law.

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? It seems clear that the former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese is stating the meaning given to the term by the Founding Fathers.

The Founders would take issue with defining a natural born citizen as a subject, and I’m surprised you don’t take issue with it, yourself.

Where does the term "subject" appear in my post?

7,173 posted on 08/05/2009 11:05:40 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7164 | View Replies ]


To: Mojave

Meese was expressing the assumption that English common law, governing how to determine status for royal subjects, ie natural born subjects, was the origin of and therefore the root from which to derive meaning of, the term natural born citizen under a constitutional republic.

So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period. Not natural born citizens.

Do you really think Edwin Meese could have successfully defined terms within the Constitution all on his own, in any capacity? Assuming he could, would there be any controversy today, if he had?


7,177 posted on 08/05/2009 11:13:43 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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