Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: wbones8765

So, are loyalties conveyed genetically?


8 posted on 08/01/2009 7:44:45 AM PDT by Sloth (Irony: Freepers who call Ron Paul a "nut" but swallow all the birth certificate conspiracy crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sloth

So, are loyalties conveyed genetically?


Sloth, don’t be stupid. “by soil” and “by blood” refer to place and CULTURE. The PEOPLE among whom you are born. The assumption is that you have greater interest in the well-being of those among whom you are born than, say, a culture that is your enemy, or merely annoying neighboring village.

Please, you know that biological ties can be very powerful, despite what liberals will have you believe. Think of adopted children who do everything they can to find their birth parents. Look at how strongly Obama identifies with Kenyan culture.


9 posted on 08/01/2009 8:13:14 AM PDT by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Sloth
In creating a Constitutional Republic, with no allegiance to a sovereign king, queen or lord, it was necessary to make the citizens themselves sovereign. Therefore, allegiance under a Constitutional Republic is to the people, as in "We, The People." The concept of a natural-born citizen follows suit with this conceptualization, and the difference between this and the British natural born subject becomes clear.

Born into allegiance to the citizens means born of citizens, jus sanguinis. Born of the soil, jus solis, avoids further competing allegiances or legal claims upon a President or Vice President, based upon citizenship. The two are combined in the Constitutional natural-born citizen. All other forms of citizenship have been or are conferred or imposed via statute, lex soli.

Viewing the matter through the lens of the Framers, guided by Vattel, in opposition to the British monarchy but products of that realm, provides a great deal of clarity.

It's been my understanding that several sitting Presidents were under arrest orders by the British at various times, right up to the War Of 1812. Now, what do you suppose gave the British the idea that they were intitled to do such a thing?

13 posted on 08/01/2009 6:36:59 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Sloth

Article II Sec 1 clause 5 was not intended to be a GUARANTEE against a disloyal POTUS. We did have Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

It was meant to minimize the possibility, in concurrence with a vigilant citizenry, whom the cultural marxists in the educational, entertainment, and journalistic establishments have succeded in diminishing.


16 posted on 08/01/2009 7:28:42 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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