George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, tells us this quite clearly, and he's right. You go on and on an on about this English Law sh*t, and now you come up with this utter contradiction of it? I guess you simply change your mind whenever it suits you. Under the English law, there is no question that primary allegiance is owed to the King. Virginia was his land too. (at the time.)
The Entire State of Virginia was no Different under English Law than was Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III.
And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.
The nation didn't EXIST when he was born. You aren't grasping the fact that you CANNOT have born allegiance to a country which doesn't exist when you are born.
You really have to stretch your nonsense in these pathetic attempts to cover it's nakedness.
By the way, I hope you didn't miss post #72.
No, I didn't miss it. I agree with it. I just don't feel the need to run after a pat on the head like one certain little boy who craves recognition.
If Ted Cruz runs and emerges as the best conservative candidate, it looks to me like the tolerance for your BS is likely to drop quite dramatically.
You can shove your veiled threats back into your brain orifice, you little spastic dweeb.
I shall not be the least surprised to see Liberals (and their Media dogs) do a 180 on Ted Cruz if he secures the nomination.
There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, says you're full of crap.
I think there is a distinction... between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign [i.e., the KING] established by that society...
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign [that is, the KING]. If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.
BZZZZT! You lose again.
