Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
From Thomas Jefferson:

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CLXVII.—TO JOHN JAY, November 14, 1788

TO JOHN JAY.

Paris, November 14, 1788.

With respect to the consular appointments, it is a duty on me to add some observations, which my situation here has enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners, of whom nothing was known but on their own information, or on that of others as unknown as themselves) came to a resolution, that the interest of America would not permit the naming any person not a citizen, to the office of consul, vice-consul, agent, or commissary. This was intended as a general answer to that swarm of foreign pretenders. It appears to me, that it will be best, still to preserve a part of this regulation. Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to aliens, and to citizens alien-born.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16782/16782-h/16782-h.htm

531 posted on 03/26/2014 2:20:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Slaughterhouse Cases

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

It was contended that the statute in this particular was in conflict with that clause of the Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." But the court answered, that corporations were not citizens within the meaning of this clause; that the term citizens as there used applied only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature had prescribed;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36#writing-USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO

532 posted on 05/14/2014 3:01:32 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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