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

To: philman_36

Subject as a term applying to Republican Freemen was not used because of its association with British royalty. Republican Freemen are “NOT” subjects.


237 posted on 02/24/2012 2:50:02 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies ]


To: W. W. SMITH

From the birthers favorite case, Minor:

“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

But as I have shown already, the term ‘natural born subject’ was, for some years after, used interchangeably with NBC.


240 posted on 02/24/2012 2:53:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: W. W. SMITH
I just supplied what it meant as you asked. Redirect your argument to the appropriate party.
245 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:49 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | 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