Jefferson On Citizenship Under A Republican Form Of Government

ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | Aug 19, 2010 | constitutionallyspeaking aka patlin

[patlin]

Now, let us begin this short visit back into the year of 1803 and the wisdom & patriotism of Thomas Jefferson from his time in the Virginia state legislature…

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of-foreigners ? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect: the greatest number, of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for.an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

(snip)Read & learn the truth through Jefferson himself as to which principles of the English constitution they rejected thus adopting better laws based on natural rights & natural reason…

[patlin]

Or are you saying there was no way for a woman to become an American citizen except by marriage?

Absolutely not. What I am saying goes to the natural right & natural reason according to natural law and that is what Supreme Court Justice James Wilson(also signer of the Declaration & Constitution) stated in his works on American Law. According to the law, when a man & woman enter into a marriage, the 2 become one. The woman takes the name of the husband as well as what ever allegiance he has. Therefore, the entire household is in unity & happiness under but one allegiance and thus all off-spring shall also be of that allegiance.

When we speak of a child born into the marriage we are speaking of a legitimate child. According to natural law, an illegitimate child at birth has allegiance under the law to the society the mother is a member of. Only when & if the mother & father marry does the child then become legitimated and take the allegiance of the father. Some societies went further & legitimated the child when the mother married any man as according to natural law, the male was to be the provider of the family unit.

I blame a lot of this on the progressive women's movement. But, don't get me wrong, I believe women always had the right to vote in the society in which they were members, but that should have never had anything to do with conferring citizenship under natural law when a child is born in wedlock. This notion was bred by the progressive movement to dumb down citizenship in order to further their agenda of global citizenship & a one world order. They are only a few pen strikes away from completing that part of the agenda. It is up to us to reverse this course and that is why I work so hard at researching to uncover the truth of the law as it was written, not as the progressives would have you think it was written.

[jamese777]

Those who believe the usurper is American are the conspiracy nuts.

---

Tell it to Karl Rove, its his characterization.
However its the rare usurper who gets 69 million votes, 365 Electoral College votes, no objections from any of 535 members of Congress to the certification of his Electoral votes and then gets sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, handed the keys to the White House by George W. Bush, and handed the nuclear football with the launch codes to every nuclear missile in the US arsenal by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And then gets invited over for cocktails by the Supreme Court Justices.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

According to the law, when a man & woman enter into a marriage, the 2 become one. The woman takes the name of the husband as well as what ever allegiance he has.

If that were true, there could be no such thing as an American citizen man married to a French citizen woman--the French woman would automatically become an American citizen upon marriage. That's not the way it works under current law, however. Do you believe that's a mistake, or a way in which the actual law conflicts with natural law?

[patlin]

It's not what I believe, it is a matter of natural law, natural right & natural reason in which our country's Declaration of Independence & Constitution were founded upon.

Allowing women to retain a foreign citizenship is not the problem as along as it only pertains to her citizenship & civic rights i.e. voting. It's when government goes further away from natural law and says that the mother's nationality also passes to the child when the child is born in wedlock. What this basically does is divide the child in 2 from the moment of birth and makes the child subject to competing laws of different nations and there is absolutely nothing natural or reasonable about that action. It is a man made concept(feudal common law emphasis on the term feudal, it is always in conflict with nature & reason); a concept that was repugnant to the founders & framers and thus was wholly rejected & abolished.

[patlin]

If that were true, there could be no such thing as an American citizen man married to a French citizen woman—the French woman would automatically become an American citizen upon marriage.

As far as if I believe it was a mistake, the answer is YES! It was the 2nd step in de-unifying the family unit, the 1st being the WKA decision of 1898. At the time of the ratification of the constitution, there was no such thing as ‘civil marriages’. The law dictated that the marriage had to take place in a house of worship by a minister of God, or in the case of the Quaker, i.e. today the Amish, the law allowed for the marriages to take place in their respective communes. It was the churches that were responsible for the records of marriage, not the municipal governments. As Wilson put it:

That important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family . . . The family is the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good.

[Plummz]

any law in the US Code or any decision rendered by the Supreme Court

How did John Jay know what "natural born citizen" meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court? Or do you think he had a time machine?

[jamese777]

How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court? Or do you think he had a time machine?

---

There is a difference between “personal opinion” and “codified law”. John Jay’s opinion as Chief Justice never was expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court.

With regard to the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama, 72 courts (including 8 attempts at the Supreme Court) have thus far ajudicated lawsuits on that issue and zero courts have ruled him to be ineligible.
There is no law on the books that spells out precisely who shall be considered a “natural born citizen.” The closest the current law of the land comes is in spelling out who shall be a “born citizen.” Whether there is a difference in the law between a born citizen and a natural born citizen is yet to be determined.

[Plummz]

You forgot to answer the question — How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court?

—

Are you saying that the words ahd no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenous anti-American whackjob.

[Plummz]

You forgot to answer the question — How did John Jay know what “natural born citizen” meant without the guidance of the US Code or the Supreme Court?

—

Are you saying that the words had no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenuous anti-American whackjob.

[jamese777]

Are you saying that the words had no meaning when they were written?

You are a disingenuous anti-American whackjob.

---

The United States of America is such a great nation that even disingenous anti-American whackjobs are afforded the right to state their personal opinions! ;-)

One more time, I’m saying that John Jay wrote an OPINION on the issue, nothing more, nothing less. His OPINION is not codified in the law of the land. The 14th Amendment still stands as the law of the land: “All persons born...”

Just like John Jay, you are entitled to YOUR opinions, but that’s all they are, opinions. If John Jay’s point of view was the law of the land, I am certain that the Justices of the current US Supreme Court would have agreed to hear at least one of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them for Justices’ Cert conferences. Since it only takes four Justices to agree to hear an appeal and since there are five originalist/conservative Justices on the high court bench, it is obvious that the current High Court has not been swayed by John Jay’s personal point of view. Then as now, it takes a majority of the Justices to agree to have a ruling that stands.

[Plummz]

Hey dipshit,

John Jay wrote the clause into the Constitution.

[jamese777]

Hey dipshit,

John Jay wrote the clause into the Constitution.

---

Which clause it that?

[Plummz]

Put down the crack pipe.