These are all true. Which means they put the lie to your previous claims "John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence" Your link does not prove what it asserts.
Your historical illiteracy was on full display there: Locke quite evidently wrote of the right of revolution, as James Otis (your source) notes.
But as I repeatedly point out to you, the word "Citizen" does not seem to be present in his work. Ergo, he wasn't the source that created this effect.
One more, just for fun and so I can laugh again when you purport to ignore it using your stupid evasion that Locke didn't use the term "citizen."
It is not my evasion, it is yours. I am embracing the word "citizen", which as a matter of fact, is the concept around which the entire discussion revolves, isn't it?
You are the one trying to avoid the word that is at the center of the debate, and you are desperately hoping Locke will somehow save you from it. :)
Another strong influence on Jefferson was Jean Jacque Rousseau:
And what Authority on English common law was he? Are you making the argument that our usage of "citizen" intended to follow English Common law because Rousseau was a source of English common law?
a claim I've disproved above
No you haven't. You are just deluded that way. :)
Then you were all big on how Justice Gray misread the legislative history to the 14th Amendment. Then I disabused you of that ill-informed opinion, and you've since abandoned it.
No you haven't. You've pointed out that a couple of ignorant Senators and Reps had an ignorant view of things, but you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that Bingham followed your claims. My tagline is a partial quote of what Bingham said.
"Bingham" is one of those uncomfortable facts like "citizen", and so of course you just want to ignore him and declare yourself correct. :)
You also never seem to get around to answering the question of why we needed the 14th amendment anyway. If the existing law was jus soli, then why make a jus soli amendment? (Especially one that still didn't include Indians.) :)
Instead, they framed this borrowing the nomenclature of English common law ("natural born" citizen).
Except about that part where they added the word "citizen", which completely changes the nature of it.
We can observe Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke being cited.
Not going to wade through all your silly claims, but i'll knock this one off. Lynch v. Clarke was a STATE case, not a Federal case. It was shortly thereafter overturned by a State Statute that *DID* ban the children of transient aliens from being a citizen of New York.
The Legislature of New York did with premeditation, and Malice Aforethought, BITCHSLAP the ignorant judge that rendered the Lynch v Clarke decision.
And now you've been BITCHSLAPPED as well. :)
Your link does not prove what it asserts. The first two links were to your prior posts, which shows I was quoting you verbatim. The other links in fact demonstrate it is recognized Locke influenced Jefferson's Declaration. As to Locke espousing the right of subjects to revolt, I've previous given that reference to his work.
But as I repeatedly point out to you, the word "Citizen" does not seem to be present in his work. Ergo, he wasn't the source that created this effect.
Locke wrote on the right of "subjects" to revolt when their natural rights were being wrongly denied and this was read by Colonists who were "subjects" and who (e.g., James Otis) credit Locke with inspiring the American Revolution. And you keep trying to claim he couldn't not have this "effect" because he didn't use the word "citizen."
You are truly hopeless. You have this backwards. Under your reasoning, Vattel couldn't have have influenced the Colonists towards revolution because they were subjects and Vattel was writing only about citizens. They would have gone "nah, Vattel doesn't speak to us, we're "subjects." Right?
I am embracing the word "citizen", which as a matter of fact, is the concept around which the entire discussion revolves, isn't it?
And I am embracing the historical fact that, for many, "subject" and "citizen" had an interchangeable usage. So that European writers used "citizen" whereas English writers used "subject" isn't a very significant distinction given that it's recognized that Jefferson (like many other Colonists) read and drew upon writer from both England and the Continent.
And what Authority on English common law was he? Are you making the argument that our usage of "citizen" intended to follow English Common law because Rousseau was a source of English common law?
Your straw man mischaracterizations get rather tedious.
Rousseau and Vattel were each European writers who influence Jefferson and whom Jefferson drew upon when writing the Declaration. Both used the term "citizen." Therefore, you can't blithely just waive your hand and proclaim that Jefferson's use of "citizen" stems from Vattel. And this is all the more true given that Jefferson stated that his Declaration was a synthesis of the thoughts of multiple writers.
No you haven't. You are just deluded that way.
I'm sure no amount of articles, no matter the level of scholarship will ever prove my point to you. Your mind is made up and you won't entertain counter-proof. Any article by a scholar written in the past 150 years you dismiss as being "modern." And a contemporary source (Otis) who give equal credit to Locke and Vattel (listing Locke first) you simply highlight the part about Vattel and ignore the equal credit he gives to Locke.
But, again, my puropse here is not to convince you; it suffices for me to show that your positions and arguments are objectively unreasonable.
You've pointed out that a couple of ignorant Senators and Reps had an ignorant view of things,
I quoted where Bingham termed Rep. Wilson his "learned friend" with whom he had frequent discussions on these topics. If you would give Wilson (whom you stupidly and dishonestly quoted to try to make him appear to support you) the credit Bingham gives him, perhaps you wouldn't remained mired in ignorance.
but you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that Bingham followed your claims.
No, ignorant one, I have done that repeatedly. You just ignore it. Here's the learned John Bingham:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)
That's the jus soli, English common law based rule of "natural born citizen," straight and clear out of the mouth of John Bingham.
Got it now?
Except about that part where they added the word "citizen", which completely changes the nature of it.
Changes? Says who? You? LOL. You need a better source than that.
Franklin and Adams wrote "natural born subject" into state constitutions. You can't dismiss this as some attempt to slowly "break in" the supposed radically different concept of "citizen." One might conceivably do that via pamphlets or every day discourse. But a state constitution that can only be changed via the amendment process or by outright abrogation and substitution? Nah, the "slowly adjusting" claim is silly.
The Legislature of New York did with premeditation, and Malice Aforethought, BITCHSLAP the ignorant judge that rendered the Lynch v Clarke decision.
That's debatable. That statute excludes "transient aliens." Julia Lynch's parents had been in New York for 4 years prior to her birth. Doubtful that's "transient." But, in any case, I've already dealt with this tired sawhorse of yours. In your legal ignorance you fail to recognize the distinction between the common law and statutory law.
Lynch v. Clarke was cited within the 39th Congress as exemplary of the "existing law" which that body stated it was merely affirming:
"This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Wilson's speech, March 1) and by the authorities he has cited. (1 Sharwood's Blackstone, 844; Naturalization Ac's Digest, 187; Section 10 of Act of September 4, 1841; Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 4.. 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title Denizen; 2 Kent. Comm., 278, note; . . Rawle on Constitution, 80; State ex Manuel, 3[.]
In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, "it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union" it was and is that "all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents." (1 Sandford's Ch. R., 483)
This was the common law of England, and this statute (25 Edward II, St. 2 [] ) was declaratory of the old common law." Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)
And the SCOTUS in WKA cites Lynch favorably 3 times for much the same proposition -- that all persons born in the U.S. were native citizens at birth had been recognized without controversy since the Constitution was enacted.
So, I asked you once before: given that Lynch is cited favorably within the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS as exemplary of the common law on "natural born citizen," why should anyone give a rat's a** what the NY legislature later did?
You didn't answer before. Perhaps this time you can get the hamsters turning the wheels in your head and muster a reply.