Replies

Mr. Madison's very next words are: " Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."[my emphasis added]

Ah, but look a little further, and see the very next lines:

It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge.

So what is Madison saying? That Mr. Smith may found his claim on his parentage, but Mr. Madison thinks that is the wrong foundation.

As much as I would thoroughly enjoy it, It would be ungentlemanly of me to razz you over this, but the Petitioner to whom James Madison is referring is Dr. David Ramsey, not William Loughton Smith. Ramsey was a military surgeon during the Revolutionary war, and a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was also a prominent member of the community and a historian. William Loughton Smith, on the other hand, was safely in England during the war, and only returned to the United States after he was 23 years old. He had lived in the United States a mere 7 years before running for congress at age 30. Dr. Ramsey was defeated in the election by William Smith, but challenged his claim to the house seat from South Carolina on the basis that He was a British Subject living with family in England when the nation declared independence.

Madison argued that he was part of the Community of South Carolina, and was thus carried into American Citizenship when the Community became part of the United States. It was Dr. Ramsey to whom James Madison referred as "a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles:"
I believe Ramsey went on to eventually become Governor of South Carolina.

Interestingly enough, ten months later, Madison embraces these very principles which he previously questioned with his "aye" vote for the "Naturalization act of 1790."

Fine, get the Congress to pass the necessary laws. Because you're not going to get it undone any other way.

Then you misunderstand the problem. The problem is not of laws, but how they are wrongly interpreted. The fault lies entirely in the federal courts. Do you think any law was passed creating a "right" to abortion? No! It was utterly made up bullSh*t legislating from the bench, supposedly based on "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment.

You seem to be slow on understanding me. I have already told you that I think many decisions are wrong and dumb. I have already told you I disagree with Kelo. But that's not the point - the decision exists, whether I like it or hate it. Changes have to be made legally, not by ignoring decisions you disagree with.

You have just NOW told me that you disagreed with Kelo. I doubt I should have overlooked it if you had told me so previously. Perhaps you told someone else? As for the solution to the problem, the first thing necessary is to DENOUNCE flawed and fraudulent decisions, not defend them as legitimate. In order to create a public desire for change, it must first be understood by the public (a herd if there ever was one) that the decisions are illegitimate and wrong.

And for whatever it is worth, the property seized by New London from Susette Kelo has become a garbage dump. Like Roe v Wade, the case was based on lies, and faulty assumptions, none of which worked out to be in the interest of the petitioners. (or the nation.)

Madison embraces these very principles which he previously questioned with his "aye" vote for the "Naturalization act of 1790."

We've argued about this before - you claim the act applies to those born in the US, which of course it doesn't. It applies to aliens seeking to become naturalized, and those born overseas of American parents. Nowhere does it say it applies to those born on American soil.

The problem is not of laws, but how they are wrongly interpreted.

That well may be, but you won't change it unless you clarify the law. It may be your opinion, my opinion that cases are wrongly decided, but that won't change the existing decision. It took the first civil rights act and the 14th amendment to change the Dred Scott decision.

You have just NOW told me that you disagreed with Kelo.

I thought you were better at connecting the dots than that. I mentioned bringing up Kelo the way you keep bringing up abortion. Did you not take from that how much I disagree with the Kelo decision?

As for the solution to the problem, the first thing necessary is to DENOUNCE flawed and fraudulent decisions, not defend them as legitimate.

And this is where we disagree. The decision was made, therefore in the eyes of the law it's "legitimate." You can't pretend the decision wasn't made, or that it says something other than what it says. Instead, you need change the laws or part of the Constitution that allowed the erroneous ruling. Or work to get better judges on the bench. One more Conservative justice would have done it.