[netwrkranger]

Notorial Dissent wrote:

Then you should have presented it as such, which you did not. The fact that that take is pure booswah is then irrelevant???

Perhaps you missed the very top of the post where it said 'another perspective'???

Notorial Dissent wrote:

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

You failed to point out which parts of the article were false instead of wholesale disregard of the article. Also, what part of another perspective says argument?

Notorial Dissent wrote:

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.

And your citations for your assertions are..... ??? You need to be more specific in which interpretations or statements are false and refute each one.... kind of like an affidavit. Also, I think you are leaving out some important information. The US also recognizes the right of a US citizen to renounce their citizenship.

Notorial Dissent wrote:

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.

That's interesting. These cases are in contradiction to your first assertion.

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a
person to be a citizen of the United States in order to
be a citizen of his state."
[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections]
[221 A.2d 431 (1966)]

"But a person may be a citizen of a particular state
and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty -- the right to declare who
are its citizens."
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

"We have in our political system a Government of the
United States and a government of each of the several
States. Each of these governments is distinct from the
others, and each has citizens of its own ...."
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**
and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the
former without being the latter.

[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

You are also forgetting that each one of the "States" are actually republics and are nations in their own right. Each republic will have its own rules for naturalization.