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

To: Jeff Winston
Story states that it was passed "out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country."


Justice Joseph Story was born in 1779. Do you think he contributed much to the Constitutional deliberations being that HE WAS ONLY eight (8) Freaking years old?

He is, like MOST of the people you cite, not a member of the group who deliberated it, and in fact came along AFTER THE FACT. As is common with the people you always cite, his opinion is "hear say" and speculation, not first hand knowledge.

333 posted on 08/20/2013 9:48:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Justice Joseph Story was born in 1779. Do you think he contributed much to the Constitutional deliberations being that HE WAS ONLY eight (8) Freaking years old?

No, I don't think he attended the Constitution Convention.

But George Washington and the nearly half of the Signers of the Constitution who passed the 1790 Naturalization Act certainly did, and they absolutely contradict the idea that they intended for "natural born citizen" to mean what birthers say it meant.

James Madison did. He was called "Father of the Constitution." And he absolutely contradicts your claim that citizenship was simply by jus sanguinis.

And Justice Story certainly knew the law of the early United States - he is one of the foremost experts who did - and he certainly knew the Founding Generation, personally. His father was one of the Sons of Liberty who hosted the Boston Tea Party.

Story himself was appointed to the US Supreme Court by James Madison, where he served for many years with John Marshall, who was himself a Founder.

Story is, in fact, one of the most authoritative and credible voices of the early United States.

And this is what you do. You try to silence the most authoritative voices, or misrepresent them, while elevating non-authorities you think make you stupid case, like Samuel Roberts and David Ramsay.

He is, like MOST of the people you cite, not a member of the group who deliberated it, and in fact came along AFTER THE FACT. As is common with the people you always cite, his opinion is "hear say" and speculation, not first hand knowledge.

And this from the guy whose prime authorities are David Ramsay - not a member of the inner circle or Constitutional Convention, not a legal expert, who was voted down 36 to 1 by those in the know including James Madison; John Bingham who was a CONGRESSMAN two entire GENERATIONS after the Constitution was written; Samuel Roberts who didn't even represent the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (wow, were THEY at the Convention?), and the like.

Do you even understand how twisted, convoluted and self-contradictory your own positions are?

341 posted on 08/20/2013 10:24:22 AM PDT by Jeff Winston (Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | 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