Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by big bad easter bunny
The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.
Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.
When it first signed up, it made a beeline straight for me, and i've mostly ignored it ever since.
What is surprising is how often it tries the same old tactics that have been shot down so many times before, and yet for it, every day seems to be a new day!
Reminds me of this old cartoon.
This is what I usually do to him.
Agree absolutely that he is paid. It is obvious from the walls of text he routinely posts that he has no other obligations; this is his life. Had Bush hired people to lie and mislead, it would have been a story. When Dems/liberals/Obama do it...nothing.
The question is, what do his employers imagine they are gaining? The poster is not very sharp. He has a narrow script that, as long as he follows it to the letter, enables him to lay out the liberal/Obama talking points. He does it mindlessly, by rote. It’s not persuasive; it’s just vacuous.
Then there are the times he strays even fractionally off-script, and says stupefyingly idiotic things. Yes, it’s good for a laugh. But it also underscores how unthinking a person has to be in order to spew Obama’s talking points. Anyone who can think with even minimal effectiveness and objectivity could no longer support this ignorant, lying, purposefully-destructive, America-hating, Islam/terrorist loving Malignant Narcissist. [Most thinking people *never* supported him.] But it is clear from the moronic things this paid troll says off-script why he is still supporting Obama: he simply cannot or will not *think.*
Then there are the insults. He is a liberal deceitfully posting on a conservative site, 99.9 percent of conservatives who have read his comments are fully aware of his moonbattyness, and yet he and/or his employers imagine it’s a good idea to stuff every single post full of adolescent, jerkish insults.
Why?
Does he think this impresses anybody? Does he imagine it’s effective? Does he think this is the way people win debates?
A few equally jerkish moonbat types do think those things. But everyone else just finds the monotonous, childish, pointless insults irritating. Also classless, since if an uninvited ‘guest’ is going to lie their way onto a forum that they have no business posting on, the least they could do is not be over-the-top obnoxious about it.
This is $ down the rat hole, pure and simple. No one’s mind is being changed by the troll’s unreadable screeds, but many are being disgusted by the brainlessness of the constant repetition, both of the talking points and of the insults. Even an administration as incompetent as Obama’s should have better ways to spend $. [& yes I know Obama is making incredible progress toward destroying the country. That is no indication of competence, however. It requires no competence to destroy, only a mind focused on evil and its implementation. That is why ISIS is so good at destroying, but neither it nor Obama has actually created ***anything*** of value.]
----
Anywho, I didn't know if you have this one by Howard, so I thought I'd post it anyway just in case -
On May 30, 1866, the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr Jacob Howard, said;
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Jacob Howard
center column, halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
Not all things seen in the skies and on the ground are extraterrestrial in origin. But some are, a significant some.
We live at a time when it should not longer be in doubt that there are beings not of this spacetime Earth visiting the planet, yet the strategy used to establish a level of ridicule over the topic, and thus squelch the topic from public awareness, has been so successful that even today there are people eager to ridicule, mindlessly, because they have bought into the stratagem as the best way to consider the phenomenon.
The strategy is founded upon the Goebbels principle, that marginalizing the target eventually removes the arguments of the target from sensible discussion. Alinsky phrased it in his own words to fit his agenda, but it is recognizable.
Ultimately, it is a brilliant strategy sourced in an evil mind, the mind of a fallen angelic being. Even Alinsky recognized the source and dedicated his first handbook for revolution/chaos to that source.
So I ask again, rhetorically, 'what must it mean that a regime adopts such an agenda of deceit in order to manipulate the people?'
And why wouldn't I? You lost the argument then; you're going to lose the argument now. I've seen your past posts; I know the argument you're going to make, and it's so far following the path I predicted.
Something tells me you've already been presented the rebuttal quotes by Howard, and Bingham, and So forth, but will simply brush them aside.
No, I will explain the supposed "rebuttal" quotes in the context of all of their statements, rather than doing what you do -- extract just the ones you think help you while explaining them together with other statements.
But if you want an example of "brushing aside," look at how you've responded to the discussion in the House during the CRA debate that "existing law" is represented by Kent, Rawle, State v Manuel, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke." These are all authorizes cited by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark. You've been critiquing Gray's opinion on the supposition that what he writes is inconsistent with the Congressional testimony. Hey, earth to DumbDumb: No, it's not. The very same authorities are put forth in the Congress, which blows your critique clear out of the water.
The reason you have to brush these aside and pretend they aren't there while quickly trying distract the discussion to other testimony quite obvious.
Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said:
And is that saying anything inconsistent with what I've already shown from Howard?
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).
As I've pointed out, the "subjects or citizens" wording makes it very clear that he's alluding to the common law as applicable, respectively, to England and the U.S. And he accordingly makes no reference to any necessity of "citizen parents." And note also he speaks of this "as held by the courts." As he speaks, is there a single court that has issued a holding in a case that citizen parents are necessary for a child born here to be a citizen by birth? No. Is there one that says such are not needed? Yes, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke."
Does what you've now tossed up say anything about citizen parents? No. So this is your first swing-and-miss. It's again, the same error you've made the past two days as to Justice Story and Matthew Bacon:
And of course Bingham. Here he is in 1862:
1862? I've posted from the House discussion in 1866 -- specifically addressed to the citizenship clause -- where the Judiciary Committee Chairman reported existing law as being clearly jus soli as to the native-born (citing to Kent, Rawle, etc.) Bingham's words there are in the context of an entirely different discussion, namely, the emancipation of the slaves. He's have an exchange with Cong. Wright, who's saying in effect "if you emancipate this horde of slaves, where the heck are you going to move them?" To that Bingham's replies in effect "Whose saying anything about moving them? Unquestionably being born here of parents owing now allegiance to any other sovereignty they are citizens, as as citizens they have the right to move - or stay - in whatever state they please."
This simply isn't a discussion in the least focusing on the parameters of birth citizenship. You here make the same logical mistake you make with the Minor -- taking a statement "these persons are unquestionably citizens" to mean as well "a person who is not in that group is thus not a citizen."
Swing-and-miss #2.
And Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson said much the same thing in 1866:
“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
OMG, I cannot believe you are trying to pull this stunt. This is serious rake-you-over-the-coals territory.
It's a curious thing that with the prior quotes you gave the reference to the Congressional Record. But this one you don't. Now, one might ask, why is that?
Could it be that Wilson, when taking his complete comment in context TOTALLY BLOWS YOUR VIEW OUT OF THE WATER??? Here it is:
The first section of the bill contains the following declaration concerning citizenship:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color.
This provison, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume, would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word "white." In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of this House who believes that this Government is exclusively a "white man Government." I think this question of sufficient importance to justify me in giving it something more than a mere passing notice.
Blackstone says:
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of Englnd: that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it." Sharswood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.
The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."
* * *
On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: 'Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.' I quote this not to claim that it was written concerning a colored persons, but for the purpose of showing how broad the rule is that Mr. Marcy affirmed. Every person born in the United States must include negroes, for they are persons born in the United Sates; and I submit that, under the rule thus laid down, all such persons must be considered to be citizens of the United States.
* * *
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."
This is jaw-dropping stuff. I've been hammering you with the statements of Cong. Lawrence, whose remarks reference and incorporate the report of Cong. Wilson, and your reply is to cite to a truncated quote from Wilson that omits that quotes both Blackstone and William Rawle? And you thought I wouldn't call out your sleight-of-hand?
And siting there is John Bingham, showing no disagreement with any of this. Which shows you're as well ripping Bingham's statements out of context.
Seriously, how stupid are you? Swing, miss, fall-over, get-booed-out-of-stadium
And you think Trumbull helps you? LOL.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).
"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)
"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen.Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)
So, there's no shoveling your sources aside; but there is some necessary shoveling of your B***s**t aside. You pile it up rather deep. One can wonder with you if it's just dishonesty, laziness, or stupidity. You present the "Triple Threat." (Oh, I know, claim this is "too long." It's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance.)
Indeed, and I'm here to apply the hurt. Like this bit from yesterday:
And as it should happen, this is exactly what the Book of English Law which Sat on John Adam's book shelf said as well.( Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736)."
Proving again, there is not a source you can't manage to misread.
"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion."
Last night you hauled out a portion of Story's opinion saying exactly the same: "To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government." Of this you were gleeful, thinking the illustrious Justice Story was saying something to support your position.
br> No, he wasn't. He was summarizing Calvin's Case. He even says that: "This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case." But you, being the idiot you are, can't see this.
Now, the ink is barely dry on my rejoinder to your gaffe there when you turn around, haul out another writer saying the same thing, and again try to brandish this as some great strike against the Terrible CpnHook.
But it's not. It's you making the same stupid mistake twice in the span of less than a day. I mean, seriously, this is ineptitude on a truly grand scale.
Fun stuff.
But I must say I'm disappointed in you. Here I've been pointing out that St. George Tucker states that U.S. laws are "accordant" with Blackstone's jus soli rule. You keep saying that you think there's some other stuff out there contra, And there MamaTexan is quoting portions of Tucker where he talks about that same idea of "ligeance." I was sure you'd go for the Hat Trick of Stupid and grab one of those, thereby making the same mistake three days in a row. But, this day is young. There's still time. C'mon, guy, you can do it.
You are just a person intent on spreading deliberate lies, and there is no real benefit to be had from presenting you with evidence. You are a liar, (Or a person so deluded as to be unable to distinguish the difference) and you have no interest in the truth.
This is what I thought you were from beginning, and this is exactly what you have turned out to be.
| The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects By King James I of England – 1598 As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a Monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the Divinitie, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Unity being the perfection of all things,)… First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by divers similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected. By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation... As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have insert herein the very words of the Text... ...it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intollerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as yee have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be: For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may ye no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and ye only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lieth not in you to take off.
Speech of James I before Parliament, March 21, 1610 The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.
|
The Declaration of Independance When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
|
|
England
United States
|
The foundational principles in England are completely alien to and incompatible with the foundational principles of the United States.
> I'm not sure what "foundational ideas" entails.
Nope this clears things up for you.
Do not ignore the fact that there were plenty of volunteer brownshirts. I don't know if Cpn Kook is getting paid for his efforts here, but volunteer kooks are not at all uncommon with the Democrats.
If he *IS* getting paid, they are getting a raw deal. He's probably doing their cause more harm by bringing up things that so obviously discredit his claims.
I think he'll abide till this current idiot is out of office, then hopefully the next President will send the Federal Prosecutor hounds after the entire corrupt mass of them, and if we are lucky, Cpn Kook will end up getting picked up somewhere along the way. :)
I'm thinking that someday we will see a good reckoning.
Just as I predicted. If I give a short answer, you claim I'm "brushing aside" your points and do the silly snowplow picture, acting as if your points can't be answered. If, instead, I go point-by-point through your stuff and reply substantively and document my reply with source materials, it's a 'wall of text' and you can pretend you haven't just had your a** handed to you on a plate.
THe Letterman Show needs a "Stupid Debating Tricks" segment. You could be star.
That's a nice side-by-side summary. I had said we weren't establishing a monarchy; that's the biggest point. This adds some paragraph points to the main topic.
Though English history can be a bit more nuanced. King Charles I asserted that "Divine Right of Kings" principle. How'd that turn out for him?
It seems that if the English "version" of natural law and its Divine Right of Kings theory doesn't prevent the people's voice (the Parliament) from opposing the King, taking up arms, arresting him, and executing him -- then I kinda don't think English natural law necessarily precluded the American Colonies' assertion of rights.
But I hope in turn, my citation to Jefferson's Virginia citizen statute made clear that as to municipal law on things like citizenship rules, we very much copied the English rule.
P.S. Look up sometime, if you haven’t already, the influence of the Magna Carta on the Declaration of Independence.
Magna Carta was push back by those who inherited land doled out by William the Conqueror to his fellow warriors. They were sick of king John’s abuse and demands for money.
They’ve been fighting off these “kings” and “royals” for centuries.
And they still have kings and queens.
Out of curiosity, will that action entail the exhumation of the bodies of Horace Gray and the other 5 Supreme Court Justices signing off on his opinion? Or Congressmen Wilson, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who in the 39th Congress debates cited to Blackstone and William Rawle in support of his view of pre-14th Amendment law? You know, kinda like how Pope Formosus was tried posthumously?
I'm merely in alignment with these historical figures.
Though thinking more on this, it might be fun (albeit weird) to side alongside Gray and company, it would be a bit like sitting on the Supreme Court bench. :)
Document one factual point I've been in error on and you win a prize. I challenged you to this upstream the last time you called me a liar. I predicted you'd fail and it would be crickets from you. It was. I predict the same again.
Whereas I've now caught you deliberately truncating Congressman Wilson's comments in the attempt to make it appear he favored your view. That was blatant deceit.
Trying to turn the tables by calling me a liar is laughable. You can play to the peanut gallery. But you and I know better. Fool.
As DiogenesLamp noted, in England claiming the right to abolish government will result in your execution. See, for example, Algernon Sidney.
Regarding Algernon Sidney:
Thomas Jefferson letter to Mason Locke Weems, December 13, 1804
I thank you for the pamphlet you were so kind as to send me which I have read with great satisfaction. you ask my opinion on the subject of publishing the works of Algernon Sidney. the world has so long and so generally sounded the praises of his Discourses on government, that it seems superfluous, and even presumptuous, for an individual to add his feeble breath to the gale. they are in truth a rich treasure of republican principles, supported by copious & cogent arguments, and adorned with the finest flowers of science. It is probably the best elementary book of the principles of government, as founded in natural right, which has ever been published in any language: and it is much to be desired in such a government as ours that it should be put into the hands of our youth as soon as their minds are sufficiently matured for that branch of study. In publishing it, I think his life, trial & letters should be thrown into one volume & the Discourses into another. the latter is the most important, & many purses can reach one volume which could not conveniently extend to the other. should you proceed to the publication, be so good as to consider me as a subscriber: and accept my salutations & assurances of great esteem & respect.
(emphasis added)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page031.db&recNum=954&itemLink=%2Fammem%2Fcollections%2Fjefferson_papers%2Fmtjser1.html&linkText=6
John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 18, 1823
With much pleasure I have heard read the sure words of prophecy in your letter of Sep 4th. It is melancholy to contemplate the cruel wars, dessolutions of Countries, and oceans of blood which must occur, before rational principles, and rational systems of Government can prevail and be established - but as these are inevitable we must content ourselves with the consolations which you from sound and sure reasons so clearly suggest These hopes are as well founded as our fears of of the contrary evils, on the whole, the prospect is cheering; I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on Government. There is a great difference in reading a Book at four and twenty, and at Eighty Eight, as often as I have read it; and fumbled it over; It now excites fresh admiration that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world—as splendid an Edition of it, as the art of printing can produce, as well as for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of Liberty from that time to this and to show the slow progress of Moral philosophical political Illumination in the world ought to be now published in America.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page053.db&recNum=1172&itemLink=/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html&linkText=6
After the divinely appointed King Charles I was executed, England moved from a more absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. The colonists moved things here from constitutional monarchy to constitutional republic. Yes, in one sense it was a radical change; though given where the Monarchy in England stands today, part of a historical trend. Theory usually follows action. No doubt writers like Sidney helped provide a framework of explanation.
The point of departure in this discussion was natural law. My point is that appeal to natural law doesn't answer the citizenship debate. Birthers think it does, assuming a biological sense to that term (the "it takes two cats to make a cat" notion). But as I've shown, Lord Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case was predicated on natural law.
So, yes, the Framers recognized natural law. But saying that doesn't answer the debate.
Calvin’s Case - The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/911#lf0462-01_mnt034
3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.
-----
Sovereignty cannot supplant sovereignty, so unless the alien formally renounces his natural allegiance, he's still an alien.....according to Lord Coke.
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.