British Common Law and the US Federal Constitution

I am going to post a screen shot here of an excerpt from a letter written by James Madison to George Washington, N. York. Octr. 18. 1787.

Please keep in mind as you read this that those in support of obama and doing away with the Article ll Presidential eligibility requirement, usually claim that the US Constitution ~ the Federal Constitution ~ was heavily based on British common law, and so the meaning of “natural-born Citizen” is exactly the same as “natural born Subject”.  We all know by now that a British “natural born Subject” is identical to a 14th Amendment anchor baby in US terms.  We also know that the 14th Amendment was never intended to be interpreted quite in that fashion.

The part of this letter that addresses G.B. Common law begins:

What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions.

It’s about 1/4 of the way down the page.

.

Click to enlarge.

Records of Fed Conven

While this letter does not touch on the topic of natural-born Citizenship, it does show clearly that our fore-fathers did not convert the G.B. Common laws into our own Constitution. I particularly focus on the last few sentences.  Suck it obama sheep. 

If you would like me to add the end of the letter just ask. 

Heh, I had to look up a word  –

From the letter, The abolition of the right of primogeniture :

Primogeniture ; The status of being the firstborn child among several children of the same parents. A rule of inheritance at Common Law through which the oldest male child has the right to succeed to the estate of an ancestor to the exclusion of younger siblings, both male and female, as well as other relatives.

Advertisements

~ by ladysforest on May 12, 2013.

One Response to “British Common Law and the US Federal Constitution”

  1. The Framers did not use the definition of an English common law “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen.” The text of the Constitution itself reveals that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “subject.” The historical context in which the Framers wrote the Constitution would not have motivated them to rely on the English common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. The way the English common law defined a “natural born subject” and the Constitution itself reveal that for the Framers these two clauses did not have the same meaning. Additionally, there is direct evidence from the Founding period that shows that the Founders and Framers did not give the same meaning to the two clauses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: