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

To: Rides3
Do we make treaties with the British? If so, Brits are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

As far as the point you're trying to make here, it's completely invalid.

Trumbull was clear that Indians born IN THE TRIBES were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. They were PARTIALLY subject to US jurisdiction, because they were on United States land.

That's what the entire "subject to the complete jurisdiction" discussion was all about.

But Trumbull was equally clear that when those "wild Indians" left their tribes, their de facto separate nations, and came to dwell among the white man, in United States society, they BECAME subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and their children born in US society were citizens.

Similarly, the children of British people in Britain were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. In fact, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at all.

But when British people came and lived among us, they became subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, just as members of Indian tribes who came and lived among us became subject to our complete jurisdiction.

So I understand the argument you're trying to make here, but it's completely invalid.

92 posted on 04/25/2013 1:47:25 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
As far as the point you're trying to make here, it's completely invalid.

Clearly NOT, as U.S. Secretaries of State have CONFIRMED what I've stated. See post 93.

94 posted on 04/25/2013 1:57:29 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | 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