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

To: woodpusher; ProgressingAmerica
His 2008 anti-Obama rant runs into a common problem—it requires that the understanding of the law of the last two and a half centuries be overturned.

I disagree. *SOME PEOPLE* understood the law that way. Others did not. Specifically the entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania most certainly did not see it that way, and as they are in Philadelphia, they likely knew better what the Framers intended than any other legal minds in the country.

Beyond that, there is circumstantial evidence indicating Obama was born in Canada, and this would make him not even a citizen.

This is just plain silly. If the Constitution transformed subjects into citizens, what were they from 1776 to 1788? Independence transformed the subjects into citizens, and that happened well before the Constitution.

The Declaration did all the transforming. Even your courts held that anyone born after 1776 was a "citizen", not a "subject."

This is gross misstatement/distortion. We do not believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. The Senate debate on 14A made perfectly clear in words and intent that the children born to the families of accredited diplomats were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

So now you've cited the debates, which gives me all the moral right I need to cite them back at you. Senator Trumbull made it clear that birthright citizenship only applied to the children of parents who owed no allegiance to anyone else.

In other words, people who have come here to stay, and who have forsaken their previous citizenship.

The term “citizen” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.

"Citizen" rests on a completely different moral and legal foundation than does "Subject."

"Subject" derives from feudal law. "Citizen" derives from "natural law", according to the framers back in the day.

The idea of claiming everyone born on your soil is inherently monarchist, and the law of monarchy is something the framers explicitly rejected in the formation of the new government.

76 posted on 04/30/2026 7:38:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; woodpusher
"and who have forsaken their previous citizenship"

You finally transformed. That's what jurisdiction gets at/means, basically.

Amazing.

You'll go back to "the old you" tomorrow. I guarantee it.

77 posted on 04/30/2026 10:37:30 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Progressivism is a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | 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