[DiogenesLamp]

Now, as I have said before, to think that the founding fathers & patriots fought a bloody war only to adopt the same definition of citizenship that they were oppressed under by the English Monarchy is to believe that there never was a bloody war to gain freedom from it. The feudal form of government that the British adopted did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not he people.

This is a point that is continuously lost on the legitimacy supporters, but it is the crucial distinction between a citizen and a subject. Jus Soli is based on the Common law of the Monarchy, and is part of the trappings of Monarchy that we through off with our Independence. (Individual States might not have, but it was certainly the intent of our Federal government.)

Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects

I recall reading somewhere that the English changed their definition of "natural born subject" as the result of an ascension fight among the Royals. Apparently there was a Royal in the line of Ascension that was born in England, but not to a British Subject, and as a result his supporters interpreted the law in such a way as to allow it.

I didn't get a chance to read it all the way through, and I have since misplaced the link to that article. Would you happen to know anything about it?

[sometime lurker]

This is a point that is continuously lost on the legitimacy supporters, but it is the crucial distinction between a citizen and a subject. Jus Soli is based on the Common law of the Monarchy, and is part of the trappings of Monarchy that we through off with our Independence.

A point that seems lost on NBC'ers: the colonists did not fight the Revolutionary war because they didn't like English common law - they fought because England refused the colonists the rights of English common law. See what Samuel Adams had to say, among many others.

Where do you think "no taxation without representation!" came from? The colonists revolted against the monarchy because it was not according them their common law rights. Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?