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

To: Abd al-Rahiim

In your mind then the Founders equated being a subject of the king with being a citizen of a republic? The history of the founding is completely to the contrary. Jefferson, for example, in his drafting, specifically rejected the word “subject” and replaced it with “citizen.”


102 posted on 04/30/2011 8:57:13 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: AmericanVictory
In your mind then the Founders equated being a subject of the king with being a citizen of a republic? The history of the founding is completely to the contrary. Jefferson, for example, in his drafting, specifically rejected the word “subject” and replaced it with “citizen.”

Not in my mind. I cited the Court's opinion in Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray clearly stated that, "The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

I have Supreme Court jurisprudence on my side. Do you? Even in Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite resorted to common law to define "natural-born citizen"; he did not cite de Vattel at all in the Court's opinion, which was unanimous and accompanied by no concurring or separate opinion.

108 posted on 05/01/2011 7:01:42 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | 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