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

To: sometime lurker

Your quote from the Congressional Globe hurts your argument. It shows that the Congress didn’t presume common law would automatically be in effect. By your own admission, the English statute was passed nearly 100 years prior ... which means it would be part of the common law. This shows there was selectivity about what parts of English common law were respected in the new United States.


611 posted on 10/25/2011 8:30:46 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
It shows that the Congress didn’t presume common law would automatically be in effect. By your own admission, the English statute was passed nearly 100 years prior

Sheesh - of course Congress didn't presume common law would always be in effect in all things - they were quite specific in some areas - outlawing bills of attainder, for example. So yes, there was selectivity, but many terms in the Constitution are taken directly from common law. "Natural born" is one of them. Again I remind you of President Reagan's attorney general writing that we follow jus soli..

In case you don't realize this, some colonies were established and had laws/charters dating from before the 1708 English statute making those born of English citizens abroad natural born.

615 posted on 10/26/2011 5:20:07 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | 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