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

To: sometime lurker
Reread your Tucker quote, and then read the entire essay. The portion you quoted is under the heading "3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics." So it is about which laws were abrogated and which were not. It appears you would like to read it as saying they all were, but that's not what it says. What it actually says, simplified:

by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished...

... and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

It is the contention of our side that characteristics of British Subjectude, such as perpetual allegiance and jus soli claims by a nation, are manifestations of Monarchical and Fuedal law, and are exactly what Madison referred to as anti-republican doctrines. Therefore, they are that part of English Common law which was rejected by the creation of our government and the principles of our founders.

As I have mentioned before, if you wish to claim people as servants, jus soli works great for adding to your labor force, but it is unsuitable for granting citizenship in a country based on the principles of freedom, as anchor babies and birth tourism aptly demonstrate.

Again, it is our contention that an exclusive jus soli interpretation of citizenship is one of those Monarchical left-overs (founded on the nature of regal government) which was swept away by the creation of our nation.

460 posted on 02/08/2012 1:51:34 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
it is our contention that an exclusive jus soli interpretation of citizenship is one of those Monarchical left-overs (founded on the nature of regal government) which was swept away by the creation of our nation.

Interesting, but early jurists and historians seem not to agree with you. We have discussed this before, referencing Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, etc. Jus soli confers a right - that of citizenship; citizenship in the United States seems to me a most desirable thing, and I treasure mine. This theory would make it seem you believe it a burden.

491 posted on 02/08/2012 5:22:06 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | 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