Posted on 04/28/2012 7:40:56 AM PDT by IbJensen
I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?
Real “constitutionalists” are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux “constitutionalists” are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.
Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term “Natural Born Citizen” so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.
However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obama’s fraudulent election in 2008 – why leftists insist that the founders meant “anchor baby” when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land – and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012….
In short, the reason is -- kill the constitution and AMNESTY by any means.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is without any reasonable doubt, a total fraud, and ineligible for the office he currently holds. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Marco Rubio.
So, to keep Obama in office, leftists must eliminate the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and the best way to do that is to get Republicans to put their own ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket with Romney… enter Marco Rubio, who otherwise has a very weak résumé.
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen via the bloodline of the natural birth father. Obama’s natural birth father was never a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times a legal citizen of Kenya and as such, he could only pass Kenyan citizenship to his offspring, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Likewise, Marco Rubio’s father was a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth, and he could only pass Cuban citizenship to Marco. Marco Rubio was therefore, born a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, living abroad in exile in the United States. Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. citizens for several years after Marco’s birth.
In contrast, Mitt Romney was born in Detroit a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as the son of a natural birth father (Gov. George Romney) who was at the time of Mitt’s birth, a legal citizen of the United States able to transfer Natural Born Citizenship via the Laws of Nature.
Even as confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 99-0 unanimous vote, John McCain is also a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born abroad in Panama to a legal U.S. Citizen father. This proves that all Senators know the true definition of Natural Born Citizen and that they knowingly and willingly refuse to apply that standard to Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.
We know why leftists who have tried to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for years would want Marco Rubio, RNC leader for illegal amnesty, to appear on the GOP ticket in 2012 --- but why do many Tea Party and GOP voters want Rubio on the ticket?
First, placing Rubio on the GOP ticket would galvanize the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office. Second, Hispanic immigrant Rubio is leading the charge for illegal amnesty in the GOP -- a position allegedly opposed by Tea Party and patriotic type voters.
How is Rubio being shoved down the throat of pro-American voters? --- The “why” is obvious, once you understand our current dilemma…Who is voting this November?
USA Demographics White Anglo-American – 64.9% Hispanic – 15.1% African-American – 12.9% Asian – 4.4% Other – 3%
Now pay close attention….
“The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.” – The New York Times reported in April 2009.
If 50% of white Anglo-American voters stay home or vote a 3rd option of any sort in protest, guess who has a voting majority in America today? These folks seldom pass up an opportunity to vote themselves gifts from your wallet…
People forever seeking to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and “change” America into something it was never intended to be, are showing up to VOTE in increasing numbers -- just as frustrated White Anglo-American voters stay home in increasing numbers. Their “conscience” will allow the re-election of the first anti-American and illegal White House resident. What kind of conscience is that?
African-Americans are no longer the second largest voting bloc in America. They have been replaced by Hispanics over the last several years, over half of which are in the Unites States illegally. Now they are able to vote thanks to insane moto-voter and “no ID required” voting laws put in place to make fraudulent illegal alien votes “legal” throughout most of the U.S. – It’s unconstitutional, immoral, unethical and even treasonous… but they found a way to make it “defacto-legal.”
In many states, lawmakers foolishly passed laws to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and then passed laws requiring only a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, in order to vote in U.S. elections. The illegal alien vote is now equal to the legal citizen vote, even before formal amnesty is a reality. Dead people can vote, why not illegal aliens?
And since the Hispanic community is growing by leaps and bounds, pouring across our southern border like a stampede of young peaceniks headed to the next Woodstock, politicians feel obligated to pander for that vote even if they have to offend every legal citizen doing it.
The DNC wants Marco Rubio on the 2012 GOP ticket to forever eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement for high office. But the RNC wants him on the ticket too, in order to pander for the 15.1% Hispanic Amnesty vote that will otherwise go to Barack Hussein Obama in November.
If Americans allow Rubio to appear on the GOP ticket, Article II requirements for high office are forever gone and amnesty is a sure deal.
I get why RNC and DNC inside the beltway scumbags want this, but why are Tea Party folks foolish enough to go along with it?
Maybe it’s time to ask who these Tea Party folks really are?
How about someone who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution and was appointed to an Associate Justice in the Pennsylvania District Court by President Washington;
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
Or a man who was a Virginia Distinct Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Madison;
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
....And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
George Tucker
Which would be Vattel's Law of Nations - Book I,Chap 1, § 10. Of states forming a federal republic
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
-----
Tucker repeated Vattel almost verbatim, but if you still aren't convinced, here's the U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates [1774-1875] at the Library of Congress search page.
A search for the exact phrase "law of nations" brings up about 99 results, so knock yourself out.
Minor v. Happersett in 1874 is the closest I've seen. It repeats Vattel almost word for word.
Many people seem to think it means that you were born in this country. Others say that your own parents have to also have been American citizens at the time of your birth? Who is right?
It's the citizenship, not the location. The primary source is the father. Just as a child traditionally takes the father's name, the child 'inherits' the citizenship... a lot like eye or hair color.
This is natural born jus sanguinis citizenship, or citizenship by blood.
The other type is a naturalized citizen. This type is jus soli citizenship, or citizenship by soil.
People think the 14th Amendment grants a third kind, a 'native born' citizen that's the same as a natural born, but this is questionable.
Even if the Amendment DID grant some type of citizenship, that citizenship will still not be natural-born, because he was made a citizen by the law of Man, not the Laws of Nature.
Thus the term NATURAL born.
-----
We’re saying that John McCain, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum are all ineligible to be president, under this natural born citizen clause???????
McCain - natural - not only was his father a citizen, Vattel makes exception in the Law of Nations for men in military service.
Barack Obama - naturalized at birth IF he was born in Hawaii
Marco Rubio - naturalized. He became so as a child when his parents were naturalized.
Santorum - natural born - Despite going to Mexico, his father never renounced his citizenship.
Hope that helps. :-)
OK. Vattel’s Law of Nations contains 68 chapters. It is a very large tome. It makes sense that the founders of our country would value such a reference. Out of possibly a million and a half words, how many times do you think natural born citizen is mentioned? NOT ONCE - not in the original and not in the translated version. You listed quite a few words in your post but I didn’t see it once either and that is my point.
I said in a previous post show me a quote from anyone that attributed NBC to Vattel. In his book, Vattel stated that the “naturels” or “indigenes” were those born in a country of parents who were citizens. And he added, “I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
That is the extent of it and, granted, it is different from what the colonists subscribed to but that doesn’t prove the framers accepted that translation of citizenship. A dozen words and you people have created a movement to suit your agenda. This book was mainly about forming treaties, ambassadors, trade issues, etc.
Let me sum this up. If Vattel’s phrase had never been translated “natural born citizens,” and if “natural born” was a well-known, long-standing term that had been used for centuries to describe subjects of England — not just in England itself but also in the American colonies — and if we have no record whatsoever that actually says that any Founding Father or Framer of the Constitution ever relied on Vattel for the meaning of the term… one begins to wonder why exactly it’s claimed that the meaning came from Vattel?
The evidence is clear that Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution used the term Natural Born Citizens the way it was in the common law, and never used it in the Vattel sense.
Because of the Wong Kim Ark decision every child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats).
The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Following that principle, the US born children of foreigners are equal to the US-born children of US citizens. To say that the writers of the Constitution did not really believe it because they really meant that the US-born children of foreigners could not be president while the US-born children of US citizens can insults the framers and makes equality a lie.
It is possible that some of the writers of the Constitution thought that, BUT NONE OF THEM SAID IT.
If there had been letters or articles saying that the Americans at the time feared the US-born children of foreigners, there would be a reason for thinking that the writers of the Declaration were hypocrites when they wrote that all men were created equal. To be sure, some of them did not believe that slaves were equal to freemen. But it is unfair to our founders to assume prejudices that there are no evidence for. Only if they actually said “we believe that the US-born children of foreigners are not equal to the US-born children of US citizens” is it fair to them to believe that they thought it. AND THEY DID NOT SAY IT.
You didn't look very hard.
THE LAW OF NATIONS / Emmerich de Vattel / Book I / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
LOL! Wong Kim Ark was a native born citizen of the United States, not a natural born one.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
The decision says he was 'just as much a citizen' as a natural born one, not that he WAS a natural born one.
He was naturalized at birth.
WOW - one time. That prove beyond doubt that the framers included that term because it was in Vattel’s book. LOL. I’m being sarcastic here Mama. Too bad no one agrees with you. Vattel had lots of ideas we should have used. Check out this:
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/de-vattels-other-ideas.html.
“I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.”
And of course my personal favorite:
“… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.”
Well, MamaTexan, still respect this man?
You 'complain' you can't find something, and when it's shown, you ridicule.
You reaction shows you really even weren't interested in the true answer to the question you asked.
------
Well, MamaTexan, still respect this man?
Of course I do.
Interesting your earlier expression mentioned the common laws of England, since you now try to cast dispersions on the source while by-passing the CIVILIZING EFFECT of literally hundreds of years of Law by that country.... you know, the ones WE were established FROM.
------
Discussion will be encouraged. Distractions will be ignored.
Previously in the court decision it was stated:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Now there is Chief Justice Waite’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett which states: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Two points on Waite. 1. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers.... means English/American Common Law - Not Vattel’s interpretation. 2. NBC, as distinguished from ALIENS or FOREIGNERS. It is implicit in the structure that since aliens and foreigners are one and the same, NBC’s are different. Do you see the “child of citizens” modifier? It is implied that NBC and citizen are one and the same as opposed to aliens and foreigners.
There will never be a court in this land that will take your position. Get over it. You birthers are giving us conservatives a bad name. Lets put our focus on getting Obummer out of office by either proving he wasn’t born in HI and his BC is a forgery, or vote him out in the election. We don’t need your type of distractions that will never go anywhere.
Stop READING INTO what people say. Read the words. Unless you have the ESP of Kreskin, stay with the written word.
You ‘complain’ you can’t find something, and when it’s shown, you ridicule.
I've already shown it in post #81. George Tucker's annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries was literally THE book for early American law, and his View of the Constitution which comes FROM that work was accepted as legal evidence by the US Supreme Court in the defense of the RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.
Tucker specifically mentions Vattel.
[BTW – your link to a blog was a joke]
-----
AH! I recognize the tactic now.
You post like someone looking for an answer when all you really want is a response.
When that response comes [and particularly when that response is not in TOTAL agreement with yours] you offer no true rebuttal. You either jump up & down point and scream – HA HA!, like its some kind of proof or ask a question that's already been answered.
Then you repeat the cycle over and over again.
-----
You, sir are what I call a 'mental masturbater'.
And I have NO desire to hold whatever needs holding while you do it.
I’ve already shown it in post #81.
Let’s take a look at what you referenced in Post 83. Your first reference, referring to The Law Of Nations has nothing to do with Vattel. It is a reference to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 5 entitled Of Offenses Against the Laws of Nations. (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-405.htm). Interesting mistake on your part!
Your Tucker reference which mentions Vattel speaks not a word about NBC but some other topic not related to this thread.
What are you proving? Certainly nothing to support your contention that NBC has anything to do with Vattel’s interpretation.
I’ve already shown it in post #81. George Tucker’s annotated version of Blackstone’s Commentaries was literally THE book for early American law, and his View of the Constitution which comes FROM that work was accepted as legal evidence by the US Supreme Court in the defense of the RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.
If you had read your own reference you would see you are proving my point. Blackstone had a greater influence with our framers than anyone else.
You, sir are what I call a ‘mental masturbater’.
And I have NO desire to hold whatever needs holding while you do it.
By you quoting (with great fanfare by the way) Blackstone as THE authority with our framers, you sent yourself back to the T-ball league. Nice chatting with you while it lasted, hope you learned something from the practice.
The Constitution was written in 1787. The first translation of Vattel to use NBC was in 1797. And it was a poor translation of the word “indigene” - which happens to be an English word, as well as French.
That NBC is the equivalent of natural born subject is shown by the Massachusetts legislature:
“In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Notice one of the ratifying legislatures used NBS & NBC interchangeably. That doesn’t eave much doubt about how the ratifiers of the Constitution understood the term, does it?
And Ratified in 1789.
Look at your time-line. Almost everything prior to 1789 says 'subject' and everything after says citizen.
Until the Constitutional ratification process was complete, they were 'subjects'.
The States were accepting petitions from the people to be recognized as citizens so they could be in accordance with Article II Section I, clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Of course you can give the appearance that they're 'interchangeable'. Particularly since they aren't in chronological order.
Massachusetts voted for ratification in Feb 1788 - well before a number of the citations.
And since they swapped back and forth between NBS & NBC, and the final ones cited were for NBS in March 1791, there really isn’t any doubt that one of the ratifying states considered the terms NBC & NBS to be interchangeable.
“Almost everything prior to 1789 says ‘subject’ and everything after says citizen.”
Actually:
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Wrong, again........
First, your complaint was 'natural born citizen' was nowhere to be found in Vattel. And I showed you.
THEN you complained it was only once, and demanded a direct connection. and I showed you.
THEN you complained that that connection wasn't specifically for that particular clause.
If that was they only evidence that would satisfy you, why be coy? Why not just say so?
Maybe...because you really weren't interested in an answer? Maybe you get your jollies moving the goalpost?
It doesn't matter, because even if that were presented, you wouldn't be convinced, you would find another complaint.
It's not in the original French, it's not translated correctly, etc., etc., etc.
If you think the Founders spoke words like:
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
And still not see the correlation between them and the The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law [which is the title in the 1758 edition printed in 1797], then there never WILL be enough evidence for you.
Good day.
LOL! So the fact the petitions that could have began before ratification and still said 'subject' after ratification is some kind of 'proof' the words 'subject' and 'citizen' were interchangeable?
Oooooo-kay.
““In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
Was 1785 before or after the Constitution was written, let alone ratified?
The POINT is that they used the terms interchangeably.
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.