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

To: rxsid

Hey, I’m not the one drawing a legalistic distinction between the idea of subject and citizen.

The concepts in common law that applied to subjects were transferred to the United States legal system under the term citizens, since our country has no subjects.

The idea that there is a distinction is due to a ludicrous claim that all common law references to subjects and their allegiance are not transferrable to the United States, since we don’t have subjects.


110 posted on 05/19/2010 12:22:09 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (When buying and selling are legislated, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

Hey, I’m not the one saying that a subject who owes allegiance to a person is identical to a citizen of a Constitutional Republic. If they aren’t identical in meaning, then the framers would not have “transferred” the definition from one term to that of another that shares only 66% of the same words.


111 posted on 05/19/2010 12:35:02 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

Subjects were held to be in perpetual allegiance to the English monarchy.

Expatriation was and is a right that was given an extraordinary amount of consideration by our Founders.

Subjects could not renounce their allegiance, therefore expatriation was not possible. Once a subject of the King of England, always a subject of the king of England, no matter where.

Our Founders did in fact renounce their allegiance and were met with war because of the dispute over it, not once but twice.

The meaning of natural-born citizen and natural born subject do not equate, not then, certainly not to our Founders who were for the most part considered natural born subjects and were under the threat of imprisonment or death for challenging it, and not now.

The treatise that spells out legalities as far as citizenship under a constitutional republic was by all accounts quite popular with those same Founders. Lo and behold, it contains a definition of natural-born citizenship that has been cited nearly word for word by numerous Supreme Court justices and several prominent members of Congress when proposing Amendments dealing with citizenship.

Oddly, this definition is rejected by some, in favor of a term pertaining to a feudal relationship to a sovereign monarch, the very same monarch explicitly rejected by those Founders.

Strange.


112 posted on 05/19/2010 12:53:22 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | 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