Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since we all know that history has declared the Dred Scott decision to be the single worst SCOTUS decision in all of US History, we might find the dissents interesting, as they ultimately were judged correct by the verdict of history.
From Justice McLean:
Quote:
Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term citizen is "a freeman." Being a freeman, and having his domicil in a State different from that of the defendant, he is a citizen within the act of Congress, and the courts of the Union are open to him.
Quote:
Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and, in this view, have recognised them as citizens, and this has been done in the slave as well as the free States. On the question of citizenship, it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubted, and no court ever held that the people of these Territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.
From Justice Curtice:
Quote:
To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New [p573] York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.
Free blacks were citizens in Massachusetts (complete with the right to vote) by 1782.
While thats a good find about Massachusetts and early slavery it still re-enforces my claim, as Quock was found to be a Freeman. The jury found "that the said Quock is a Freeman and not the
proper Negro slave of [Jennison]," and awarded Walker damages of 50 pounds. The only place I found Citizen was in the title of the link you gave, which didn't equate to Quock.
No other link can verify he was anything more than a freeman in Massachusetts, not even the actual case shows that he became a citizen of Massachusetts.
It is a bit of a gray area. It is 100% clear that southern leaders disagreed with your position and feared that free blacks in the north were citizens. South Carolina's declaration makes a list of abuses leading to their secession and one of which is some northern states elevating some blacks to citizen status with the right to vote.
They were at the very least treated as second class citizens.
From the SC Declaration of Secession:
"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. "
The Selective Service System calls explicit bull**** on that assertion. Do you really need the link again?
NO, don't need a link, but you might want to do some research, imjusayin. The Selective Service does not call BS on that. The only reason illegals are required to register is for future possible legality (if granted some type of amnesty or legal visa), if they are legalized. It also helps them to show proof of being here for some time.
If they do not register they will be barred from any future naturalization process resulting in a permanent bar to citizenship. This
Quote:
Congress, however, does not have the authority to compel aliens into military service. An alien may seek deferment from military service, but such a request carries with it an exceptional price.138 Any alien seeking such an exemption is thereafter barred from becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.139 This permanent bar to citizenship is applicable to undocumented as well as permanent resident aliens.140
and this
Quote:
The adoption of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 revised section 101(a)(13) to eliminate the concept of “entry” from the immigration framework, and replaced it with a paradigm that distinguishes among aliens based on whether they were lawfully admitted into the United States or illegally entered the country.207 In the current version, which reflects the 1996 amendments, section 101(a)(13) uses the term “admission,” which is defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”208 An alien who has not been lawfully admitted is subject
to removal proceedings in accordance with INA section 240, notwithstanding his length of residence in the United States.209 Although physically present within the United States, aliens who are not admitted into the country are not considered U.S. residents.210
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
I gave you too much credit.
Instead, you actually don't know the difference.
I see, you are referring to my comments @ 276 & 281. Yea, I inserted a "d" instead of a space a few times, my mistake.
NO, don't need a link, but you might want to do some research, imjusayin.
I did some research and found that you were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
The Selective Service does not call BS on that. The only reason illegals are required to register is for future possible legality (if granted some type of amnesty or legal visa), if they are legalized. It also helps them to show proof of being here for some time. If they do not register they will be barred from any future naturalization process resulting in a permanent bar to citizenship. This and this
Do you have any idea how stupid your furious spinning is starting to sound? There is only one reason for registering the draft. And the SSS does not give a hoot in hell about providing support for hypothetical future actions by other parts of the government that they have nothing to do with.
So what have we established?
You insisted that illegal immigrants were somehow not under our jurisdiction because they could not vote and they could not be drafted. We have since learned that they can be drafted, and that legal aliens cannot vote either... rendering their statuses identical.
You insisted that to be under our jurisdiction you needed domicile, and that it was impossible for illegals to get it Federally or at the State level. We have since learned instead that the Supreme Court says that "illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State."
You insisted that blacks could not be citizens before the 14th Amendment. We have since learned instead that "To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
"Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New [p573] York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens."
I did some research and found that you were wrong.
And yet I have given you the exact wording as to why illegals must register (MSSA 453), yet they can not be conscripted unless an act of Congress somehow allows them legality (INA 101(a)(13)).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Do you have any idea how stupid your furious spinning is starting to sound? There is only one reason for registering the draft. And the SSS does not give a hoot in hell about providing support for hypothetical future actions by other parts of the government that they have nothing to do with.
Nobody is denying they are required to register.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
So what have we established?
You insisted that illegal immigrants were somehow not under our jurisdiction because they could not vote and they could not be drafted. We have since learned that they can be drafted, and that legal aliens cannot vote either... rendering their statuses identical.
You making claims still doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect that illegals can be drafted. IIRCA(1996) doesn't allow for them to be drafted, take it up with Clinton for signing the Bill. Prior to 1996, yea, they could have been drafted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
You insisted that to be under our jurisdiction you needed domicile, and that it was impossible for illegals to get it Federally or at the State level. We have since learned instead that the Supreme Court says that "illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State."
A claim from a footnote (22) from Plyler, from a book as written by Bouve? Sorry, that's not SC precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
You insisted that blacks could not be citizens before the 14th Amendment. We have since learned instead that "To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
"Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New [p573] York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens."
This has not been a very happy thread for you.
So you now use dicta from a dissenting opinion as proof, in which, he equates "freemen" to that of citizen of a State based on the fact they could vote as registered "freemen".
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-22-2013 at 05:38 PM..
All this would do is open up more doors to violate the constitution.
Soon every ones rights will be meaningless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When have I pretended to not know the difference?
