“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
"So no, they were not following Vattel. They WERE following English common law."
Do we believe Ms. Rogers or do we believe James Madison?
To Repeat.
Madison. "The two extremes before us", he said. "are a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 States. In the first case they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be mere countries of one entire republic, subject to one common law."
So Rogers, is that "subject to one common law" English common law here that Madison was referring to at the 1787 Constitutional Convention? Gee Rogers, I also see Madison say independent nations are subject to no law but the law of nations.
And if you cannot understand that, then you’ll just have to go on losing. Every time.
A delusional statement.
Madison. "The two extremes before us", he said. "are a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 States. In the first case they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be mere countries of one entire republic, subject to one common law." That is a great quote. The Federal Govt was formed to bring a sense of continuity & ease of passage for its citizens between the free & sovereign states for the pursuit of happiness of mankind. If man did not like the laws & regulations of one state, he could remove himself to another that better served his pursuit.
As I have stated many times now, and as you are apparently incapable of reading, the courts said common law DEFINES the terms used. It does NOT say we fall under common law.
And it used common law to DEFINE what NBC meant, for 1/3 of the WKA decision.
Do you understand the difference between being UNDER common law, and common law providing the lingua franca for the Constitution?
