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

To: edge919
Madison said "Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States" he did not say "parentage and place are the most certain, he effectively demoted parentage below place.

IOW, Smith was an NBC because of soil and birthright through parents whose primary allegiance was to South Carolina.

In the same speech:

If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency...
Funny, he mentions "natives" but not a word about their parents here. I think he was very clear - place is the most certain and it is what applies in the United States.
447 posted on 10/17/2011 2:07:54 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker
Madison said "Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States" he did not say "parentage and place are the most certain, he effectively demoted parentage below place.

No arguments here. Place of birth is one criterion of citizenship. Madison says that it's more certain in general and that it applies in the U.S. Those of us who argue for the Minor definition of NBC do not deny that place of birth is one of the criteria nor do we argue that it's an uncertain criteria. Whether it's more certain than parentage does nothing to invalidate the idea that natural born citizenship results from a combination of BOTH criteria.

In the same speech:

Here we go ... you're hunting for a sliver of hope to salvage a lost argument ...

Funny, he mentions "natives" but not a word about their parents here.

Why would he? The principle he's referring to is about having "primary allegiance to that particular society of which we are members ..." IOW, this is only about putting allegiance to the colony ahead of allegiance to the crown. He's merely saying if you claimed to be a subject of "that particular society" (in this case, South Carolina), then you are subject to its Acts. "When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society ..." Under Smith's own admission, he was still claiming to be a member of South Carolina as the child of the first settlers of that colony. By maintaing allegiance to South Carolina, Smith maintained allegiance through the state in its decision to separate from Great Britain.

453 posted on 10/17/2011 2:54:01 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | 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