Replies

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.

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

I was merely asking you to examine the text you had already insinuated to be acceptable.

Yet you provide no evidence of the search.

-----

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.

Not that it will matter. You've pretty well shown your mind is already made up.

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts
Pages 25, 38, 105, 405 & 509

Top of page 510

March 6, 1790
……and John Sockman, first taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this commonwealth before two Justices of the peace shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born citizens.

Then they took the Certificate of the Oath and filed it with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.....or State.

THESE ARE THE RULES THE FOUNDING GENERATION MADE FOR THEMSELVES.

-----

You've never heard of the law of unintended consequences?

Like letting government exercise an authority that the Constitution never gave it?