Hahahahaha. And "citizen," except for the lack of allegiance to a king isn't a virtual synonym with "subject?" And "natural born" when applied to "citizen" means something completely different from "natural born" when applied to "subject?"
You really are too funny. In one sense. Although I do agree with Kansas58 that in most senses, you're not funny at all.
You don't get to presumptuously "interpret" Chief Justice Marshall's words for us. We can read for ourselves what he is saying, and what he is saying is that Vattel's definition is the best description of Citizenship of which he is aware.
No. Marshall quite obviously isn't making a point regarding citizenship at all.
Again, he doesn't even mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" at all!
What a pantload.
Says "Jeff the might and powerful!" Bullsh*t! Washington also cites Vattel, and points out that alien residents exist as an inferior form of citizenry.
So wait. Now you're telling me that alien residents are a kind of citizen? Doesn't this screw with your silly theory just a tiny little bit?
You seem to be completely unaware that "citizenship" is exclusively a matter of International law, not domestic law. It is only by the fact of other nations existence that there is even the concept of "citizenship."
Really? So the United States does and should bow to international law to define for us who our citizens are and are not?
Really?
Personally, I believe that WE define who our citizens are.
But hey, sounds like you'd rather hand it over to the UN. At least, that's what what you just said implies.
Yeah, that same English law which said we didn't have a right to secede from England because we owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown.
Wow. So because English law said we had no right to secede, that means we threw away every other precedent of law that we had had for centuries.
No it didn't. Madison's entire argument was based on being a member of a community, not on the fact that he was simply born there. You misconstrue what Madison meant when he used the word "Place." You do the same thing to Madison that you do to Bingham. Ignore the larger argument and take out the sound bites that you prefer.
No, I haven't done that to either. In fact, it was the larger argument that caused me to understand that Bingham WASN'T saying what you claimed.
I in fact started out thinking that Bingham actually implied the same thing you claim. It was only by really reading that I found out that particular claim, like virtually every other claim you've made, is complete BS.
Okay you littel turd burger.
Is that part of your official argument?
Sure. A "Natural born Subject" is anyone the King can claim through his divine right to rule. A natural born citizen is someone who cannot be claimed by a Sovereign.
You really are too funny. In one sense. Although I do agree with Kansas58 that in most senses, you're not funny at all.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. Wadda ya know? You're good for entertainment too!
No. Marshall quite obviously isn't making a point regarding citizenship at all.
Obviously. I always quote my best definition regarding citizenship when I am talking about something completely unconnected with it.
Again, he doesn't even mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" at all!
Considering that his usage of the word "Citizen" requires citizen parents, you must be arguing that "natural born citizen" requirements are even worse! I shudder to think what degree of Patriotism must be necessary to meet these even stronger requirements you are suggesting!
What a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal you have made by pointing that out.
So wait. Now you're telling me that alien residents are a kind of citizen? Doesn't this screw with your silly theory just a tiny little bit?
I believe I am simply using the words Justice Washington used. Obviously he didn't mean it in the sense you are attempting to use it. Here is what Justice Washington actually said:
Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages.
I guess you'll have to take it up with Justice Washington as to his use of the statement "kind of citizen of an inferior order". To answer you're question, No, it doesn't screw with my theory at all. It dovetails nicely with it.
Really? So the United States does and should bow to international law to define for us who our citizens are and are not?
Sophist, rhetorical, not worth addressing.
Personally, I believe that WE define who our citizens are.
It is patently obvious that JEFF would like to define who our citizens are. The rest of us prefer the Founders thinking to yours.
Wow. So because English law said we had no right to secede, that means we threw away every other precedent of law that we had had for centuries.
No, but we did quite specifically throw away that Section of English law which decides who are subjects, and what are their responsibilities to the crown. That's what the war was about in a nutshell. Two of em, in fact.
No, I haven't done that to either. In fact, it was the larger argument that caused me to understand that Bingham WASN'T saying what you claimed.
Yes, you would have us believe that Bingham lies with his very own words rather than that you lie with yours. I prefer to think Bingham told the truth when he was alive.
Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
Okay you littel turd burger.
Is that part of your official argument?
If by "official argument" you mean "is it true?", then the answer is "Yes."
