The Ugly truth for you is that YOU CAN"T FIND ANYONE BETTER THAN BAYARD OR RAWLE. ( And Bayard doesn't even support your position.) LOL! What descriptive can we use besides 'lame' to describe his argument? Gimpy? Prostate? Vegetative?
---
I did want to share this little tidbit I ran across the other day. It's a perfect explanation of the question of some of the Founders having more than one citizenship at the same time.
Apparently, it wasn't a dual citizenship, but a 'secondary' one established for the purpose of commerce.
And it had NO affect on the Allegiance of the primary, American citizenship, either.
There is, however, some relaxation of the old and stern rule of the common law, required and admitted under the liberal influence of commerce. Though a natural born subject cannot throw off his allegiance, and is always amenable for criminal acts against his native country, yet for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country, and the place of domicil determines the character of a party as to trade.
James Kent , Commentaries
LOL! What descriptive can we use besides 'lame' to describe his argument? Gimpy? Prostate? Vegetative? No, I think LIE will suffice. Jeff routinely twists ANYTHING into a claim that it supports his position.
John Bingham is still pissed at him for his twisting of his words.
(John Bingham Pissed off at Jeff, depicted below.)
Sir! How dare you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, it wasn't a dual citizenship, but a 'secondary' one established for the purpose of commerce.
That is interesting. I understand the concept. I have seen it referred to elsewhere as "local allegiance", but it is as you say, always held secondary to ones actual allegiance. It is axiomatic that the topic of "Natural born" refers to primary allegiance.