Posted on 12/26/2023 5:52:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
:)
So many good people go silent. It's refreshing to see some of us are still here. :)
This was the results of work done by the Pennsylvania Supreme court in determining which English statues apply in Pennsylvania. I will remind you that Philadelphia was where the convention was held, and the legal community of Philadelphia (including some of these judges) actually participated in the creation and ratification of the US Constitution.
This is as close as it gets to the horses mouth.
This is a pretty regular occurrence with some of you.
Re: 143 - do you have a citation for the page you posted? Thank you.
"Subject." Not "citizen."
That is the entire distinction between the two. No, they are not at all the same.
"Subject" links to British common law. "Citizen" links to Vattel and Switzerland.
We chose the Vattel meaning by choosing the word "citizen".
Second, it is irrelevant. What the law is today is what matters, not a historical argument rendered moot by the passage of time and changes in law.
You should know very well that subsequent law cannot redefine a term used by the US Constitution *UNLESS* it is a constitutional amendment.
You don't get a back door into redefining words in the US Constitution.
1861 after Lincoln assumed the Presidency.
Simple minded explanations usually aren't. They are also usually wrong.
The chick and Obama were born on US soil. They can run for President after age 35 if they have lived as American citizens
The 14th amendment didn't re-write presidential eligibility requirements. Giving slaves citizenship did *NOT* make anyone born here a "natural citizen."
That is the wrong headed nonsense that got stuck in people's minds and is difficult to pry out of them, despite the fact that we have all sorts of examples (like the Indians) to prove it is incorrect.
-PJ
What year is it to you? 2023 or 1825?
Whenever people bring up "subject to the jurisdiction" line, they are pretty much invoking the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment did not change Presidential eligibility requirements.
Was she a "natural born citizen" by the standards of 1787? No. 14th amendment doesn't count towards presidential eligibility.
Or, Just like Obama, all the officials putting him on the ballot could just fail to check his eligibility and let him get elected anyway.
The one thing the idiot courts have taught us is that *NOBODY* and I mean *NOBODY* is enforcing presidential eligibility requirements.
They all dropped the ball and refused to do their job with Obama, starting with his proof of birth within the country.
Hawaii *STILL* hasn't released anything genuine.
My argument is that the courts are often filled with ignorant people who are unaware of the truth prior to making their rulings, and therefore they bungle the law because they are ignorant.
How many of those courts knew of that Pennsylvania Supreme Court book? How many knew it was clearly spelled out in that book?
They were all listening to William Rawle, who can be shown to be *LYING* when he claims English common law as the source for American citizenship.
Here is the entire book.
https://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe/page/n19/mode/2up?view=theater
Yep, still here! Actually wondered about you when I posted, thinking you might stop by.
You been behaving yourself?
Yes, they do. Quite a lot in fact.
I thought I explained it clearly, but apparently I didn't.
William Rawle was the man who wrote a book that caused the most damage to American's understanding of the meaning "natural born citizen."
He was an English lawyer that came to Philadelphia after the Revolutionary war to practice law. He became president of the abolition society of Pennsylvania, and at the time, other states were having success abolishing slavery through court decisions declaring slaves "free."
He set about to replicate this in Pennsylvania courts. A case he took on was Negress Flora vs. Joseph Grainsberry. (Not sure I spelled that right) He lost. It went to the Pennsylvania Supreme court and he lost unanimously.
He put forth his claim that because English common law declared anyone born on the soil to be a "citizen", slaves could not be slaves, because they were "citizens."
The Pennsylvania Supreme court rejected this argument.
Rawle kept pushing his false claims and eventually wrote a book that became quite influential in early American jurisprudence, and that book contained Rawles false claims about citizenship.
It became so widespread, that the truth of what the framers intended with "natural born citizen" has been lost. It has been covered up with the muck of what Rawle did.
And it was all about slaves.
So was the 14th amendment. People nowadays try to tell you that the 14th amendment *CHANGED* the meaning of Presidential eligibility, but this is incorrect. All it did was grant slaves citizenship.
Second, it is irrelevant. What the law is today is what matters, not a historical argument rendered moot by the passage of time and changes in law.
You cannot amend the US Constitution by passing laws. That's not how it works. You have to pass amendments.
Did someone pass a constitutional amendment in the intervening time?
Doesn't matter the year. The constitution means what it means until it is changed by a lawful amendment process.
Dealing with life, dealing with responsibilities. Have troubles with the various kids not getting their lives on track, but they seem to be trying to remedy their problems.
Yeah, I like to show up on these NBC threads and tweak a few noses. People hate the fact that there is proof that what they believe is wrong.
But this is one of those issues where people just believe whatever they want to believe, and don't want to see anything that contradicts what they prefer to believe.
You can also find me on Civil War threads. Sometimes I think much of my tendency for arguing is just being a contrarian. I enjoy it too much. :)
How are things down there in Texas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.