[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I had sought to present an alternative view of the 14th Amendment and from a Moorish perspective. It was not intended as a rebuttal, but more of an alternate contrast to the first post.
Then you should have presented it as such, which you did not. The fact that that take is pure booswah is then irrelevant???

I also felt that the article which I posted raised good points again from a Moorish perspective. If you felt it was drivel, that is your perogative of course.
Then you should have posted it as such, however, since the bulk of the material is totally false, it does not add a thing to your argument




That's interesting... here's what the preamble of the act says:

The doctrine that no man can cast off his native allegiance without the consent of his sovereign was early abandoned in the United States, and on July 27, 1868, the day before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, U.S. Congress declared in the preamble of the Expatriation Act that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"
I am not arguing either the quote above or the date of issue, however, the interpretation and statements in the article you posted were false. I have seen no indication, that one had anything to do with the other, and the historical interpretation of the law bare that out. The gist of the law is that the US in law recognizes, and will defend the right of a foreign subject to renounce their status to that sovereign by leaving that country, and going to another to seek citizenship.
- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance



As far as the Expatriation Act of 1868 goes, this is what I dug up in its entirety:



In my opinion, that paragraph above says quite a bit more concerning the act than the opinion you espouse, Notorial Dissent.

If you could, would you produce for us a copy of the Expatriation Act of 1868? Could you also produce for us cites or writings supporting your assertions?

Expatriation is part of the answer to becoming a state national being that rebuttals of the presumptions of being a statutory U.S. citizen is substantial to that process.
Nonsense, since one cannot be a state citizen without having US citizenship, one can be a resident, but that is all. When the Federal Govt was established the states ceded the power of naturalization as they did the power to print money to the new Federal Government.

Regards,
netwrkranger

You might try the following for some actual commentary on the act http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alu...in_lecture.htm