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

To: SteveH
alas, the FFs stumbled on not providing a solid definition, and we are left with what we have today plus strict constructionist analysis.

As "Citizen" was not defined in the English language in the manner we now understand it, and as "Subject" was the normal and usual way of referring to a servant of the Crown, it is pretty evidence the founders meant the word "Citizen" in the same manner as the only other *REPUBLIC* in the world (Switzerland) understood it.

In the English of 1776, the word "Citizen" meant "Dweller in a City." Or "City-denizen."

In Switzerland, it meant "Member of a nation", but in London, it meant "One who lives in a City."

The Founders intended it in the Republican meaning of the word, and therefore it isn't based on British common law.

And there is even a book from 1817 which explicitly says this was the founders intent.

81 posted on 09/09/2024 1:04:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

Our Republican “representatives” should all be as clear on the subject.


83 posted on 09/09/2024 1:08:47 PM PDT by Leep (Re-elect deep state. 2024!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
Where do you come up with this stuff?

Anybody who read the Bible was familiar with the word "citizen" and knew what it meant.

Even Paul stated he was a "citizen" of Rome and everybody knew, or was told, what that meant. He was subject to Roman law.

105 posted on 09/09/2024 7:08:57 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | 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