Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: CpnHook
Mr Idiot still hasn't explained how we got 100,000 children of ambassadors after July 4, 1776.

Yeah, *I'M* the one who isn't getting this.

368 posted on 02/04/2015 9:06:25 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Mr Idiot still hasn't explained how we got 100,000 children of ambassadors after July 4, 1776.

Now, just before, I provided you with a summary of the common law, noting that visiting aliens were recognized as owing a temporary allegiance to the sovereign, with two exceptions: 1) ambassadors and 2) hostile invaders.

Now, let's see if you are smart enough to make the proper comparison when we consider the situation of a British army coming to the U.S. To help you out here, it's like those picture books where a child is shown, say, two group of objects, one with a mix of land animals and one with a mix of birds, then is shown a pig and asked which to which group the pig belongs. OK?

So now given the situation of a British army coming to the U.S., when assessing the status of such persons and the allegiance of others aligned with them, would you say the operative rule would associate more closely with the common law precedent of 1) ambassadors or 2) hostile invaders?

Think hard.

Yeah, *I'M* the one who isn't getting this

Congratulations. For once you've managed to make a correct assessment.

378 posted on 02/05/2015 8:46:54 AM PST by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson