Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Rawle believed in a living constitution, he also was a British loyalist. Blackstone, not the founders, was his hero. Furthermore, if as you say, and that of Rawle, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ had a broad meaning that encompassed all areas of jurisdiction that had to be incorporated into defining citizenship, then why weren't the Indians immediately given citizenship? Why were they still excluded? They were here before us and they were all born within the jurisdiction/confines of the nation. Many of them fought along side the founders in the Revolution. They were subject to the laws just the same as every alien, regardless the length of their stay, except the Indians were permanent inhabitants. So if anything, they should have gotten preference over the foreigners who traveled here from outside our borders. NO?
257 posted on 06/29/2010 6:35:14 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies ]


To: patlin

The Indians were recognized as a separate nation within the borders of the US, just as they are now. We had treaties with them - broke them often enough, but we still recognized them as independent nations.


258 posted on 06/29/2010 8:04:30 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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