Replies

In the case of Talbot v. Jansen - 3 U.S. 133 (1795), Justice Iredell in writing about expatriation said,

"This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject."

"That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/133/case.html

Is citizenship based on "a particular spot" where a citizen first drew breath?

Is citizenship based on "a particular spot" where a citizen first drew breath?

"Citizenship" ought not be, (and I don't believe that American Federal citizenship ever was) but Subjugation *IS* based upon the "particular spot" where you first draw breath. Here is one Man's take on it in 1815.

What many of the English Law proponents fail to grasp is that the Law of the Soil deals with feudal-lord based claims from a King for his "subject's" servitude.

The Laws are couched in terms that make it seem as though the King is doing them a big favor by extending "His Protection" to them, and so therefore they should be grateful and have undying allegiance for him, but the reality was generally much uglier.

It was the rule of cattle, but applied to people. "Anything born on my land belongs to me."

As Alexander Mcleod put it after the War of 1812:

a scriptural view of the character, causes, and ends of the present war. By alexander mcleod, d.d. (1815)