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

To: BladeBryan; edge919
I was just focusing on that one construction you guys have been arguing about. I couldn't see how anybody could maintain that "[nobody]...understood the court to be committed" meant the same as "the court was committed. That's either more dishonest or crazier than I believe edge919 to be. Then I figured it out--I think.

The over-parsing is a familiar error, though. If I remember correctly, he's among those who argue that in the passage

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
the word "citizens" in the last sentence refers to a different group than "citizens also" does in the first sentence. It strikes me as the same kind of error: slicing apart ideas that clearly belong together.
252 posted on 09/10/2011 4:56:13 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
It strikes me as the same kind of error: slicing apart ideas that clearly belong together.

I would recommend a remedial course in English. You might focus on independent clauses versus dependent clauses.

290 posted on 09/12/2011 7:46:11 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | 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