Posted on 03/03/2016 8:35:22 AM PST by Ray76
| The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects By King James I of England - 1598 As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a Monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the Divinitie, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Unity being the perfection of all things,)… First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by divers similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected. By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation... As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have insert herein the very words of the Text... ...it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intollerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as yee have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be: For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may ye no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and ye only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lieth not in you to take off.
Speech of James I before Parliament, March 21, 1610 The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.
|
The Declaration of Independance When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
|
|
England
United States
|
Kings are gods, a natural Father to all his Lieges upon his Coronation, and the duty and allegiance that the Lieges owe to their King is from the words of Samuel cited by Gods Spirit - versus - All are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, people institute governments to secure their rights and may abolish it when they choose.
The foundational principles in England are completely alien to and incompatible with the foundational principles of the United States.
Article VI clause 2
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
If you believe that God is the supreme law of the United State, then go break one of the laws and as you defense, tell the judge that God told you that it was his will and that since he is supreme, they have to let you go.
You are correct, but the Greek usage applied to their government organization around city states. I note that the Democrats seem to be enamored of the inhabitants of cities, while those in the country seem to be worthy of no interest.
Domesday Book provides particular insights on the English views of the populace.
The divine of right of kings was common on the Continent, but in practice limited on Albion, including Scotland from whence came James I. The inhabitants from those islands across the Channel were a different sort and their sovereigns were quick to notice. Certainly those of our ancestors who immigrated to the New World took that attitude to a new level and when denied of their local governance and particularly of decisions over taxation, they took action. We sprang from the loins of Englishmen, Scots, and Irishmen, but we had our own thoughts and our own ambitions. From whence came the greatest nation every conceived. Those who did this would be appalled by the current state of affairs.
Idiot, A Declaration of Independence is a proposal of intent. It has no I repeat no force of LAW! People who supported the British during the revolution were not traitors because there was no nation only the intention of being a nation. Once Benedict Arnold swore and oath as a member of the continental military and broke it he became a traitor to his oath, had he stayed out of it like millions of american British subjects he would have been fine, I don’t remember any trials after the successful revolution for the supporters of the British.
In determining the extent the framers mirrored the laws of Creation in both the Declaration and then subsequently in the Constitution, we may expectantly look to the actual text of those documents. An examination of the Declaration and federal Constitution’s text reveals that in its most basic sense the Constitution was designed to carry into effect the principles of the Declaration (which in turn were a finite expression of the Creation law of God).
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
> That is precisely why they enumerated to Congress the plenary power to codify the particulars of who does and who does NOT require a process of naturalization.
There is the error.
n 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
But no one on your side of this debate has ever been able to show that to be error. Even conservative Justice Thomas has said that those who are citizens at birth are natural born, because naturalization only applies to a change of status after birth. And he used the Naturalization Act as evidence. See the link in my previous post.
So this ability to address all questions of citizenship, including NBC status, by statute, is the truth and has been for centuries. Even in the British parliament, there was a long pattern of addressing natural born status of British subjects by statute. And those laws were called by the label of “naturalization,” just like their American counterpart.
So unless you have a way to rewrite history, you and yours need to do better than just issue empty denials. No rational person is going to be persuaded by such fluff.
Peace,
SR
> naturalization only applies to a change of status after birth.
It should happen in the birth canal?
Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
The point I wished to establish is how US Citizenship began and when. The reference to the Inglis case was not an effort to discuss that case, it was an effort to establish that the Justices were in agreement as to when and how US Citizenship began.
Could we agree on when and how US Citizenship began?
The founders granted naturalization powers to Congress, which according to British parliamentary usage included the power to recognize foreign born children of British subjects as natural born subjects.
It makes no sense that these intelligent men would be unaware of such easily available and important information. What your side appears to be doing is indulging in anachronistic thinking, assuming without basis the founders had adopted the same categories as you have. But no, the best evidence suggests the public use of the term Natural Born included the known history of that term of art, and that it could be and was addressed by the Naturalization Act, which is confirmed by the fact that the 1790 Act did indeed deal with NBC status.
Peace,
SR
You rely on a naturalization act. The act in force at the time of birth controls.
You miss the point. Thomas is saying the statute is in fact addressing NBC status, as matter of definition, because citizens at birth cannot be spoken of as naturalized.
Peace,
SR
The only thing established by the 1790 Act vis-a-vis the foreign-born children of citizens is that they required naturalization.
No I don’t miss the point. He misstated the law. For what he said to be true would require inserting words into the statute - indeed into every naturalization statute save one and would overturn centuries of precedent.
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
That is an excellent piece of information, but i'm having a hard time establishing it as being from the founding period. Where is the source for this claim?
Yes, I truly think that you should wait until someone important gives you the opinion you should have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.