Replies

but you haven't offered any documentation that every existing resident of the fledgling US had to appear in court to make an "oath or affirmation"

{sigh}

From the top of HERE, under 'The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America'

November, 1788, “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.”

You've seen these repeatedly at the top of the same mega-post and have asserted, more than once that you agreed with it.

Are you now saying you don't know WHAT they are or why they are worded they WAY they are?

-----

I didn't say anything about the intent of WKA, only its effects.

The intent is the cause of the effect, so your reason for pointing out the difference was what, exactly?

From the top of HERE, under 'The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America'

So when you said you had provided documentation, you meant I should go read Jeff's post. Okay then.

I looked up some of those names, and it appears that those naturalization acts applied to "persons who had left the State during the Revolution, and adhered to the crown, or, in the words of the statute, had 'joined the enemies of the State.'" That's a long, long--long--way from demonstrating that every resident of the US had to take a loyalty oath, regardless of their status during the war. Keep trying.

The intent is the cause of the effect, so your reason for pointing out the difference was what, exactly?

Wow, really? You've never heard of the law of unintended consequences? You can't always divine intent from effect.