[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Quote:
Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
In orgininal premise, members of congress are not "citizens of the United States", just citizens/representatives of those sovereignties

I agree with you in a sense. But there may just be more than meets the eye. Perhaps I'm aiming to slice the hair a bit more finely. You see, my priority is clarity to those that may be reading this and who are seeking truth rather than the typical "feel good" mythology: thus the basis or penchant for getting to the nitty gritty. So...at 1774, say, maybe there could be conceivably the idea of "members of the Continental Congress" without membership in any kind of Union of American States/Colonies. However, it might be worth noting that there was already some notion of "United Colonies of America" long, long before 1774. However, in a sense I agree with you. However, I get a slant on the point you are making and it rings rather true.

Ahem. US Constitution, Article I, sec. 2, clause 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven years a Citizen of the United States ....

See it may be that they were only expounding upon the same principles that were "customary" before--codifying what was obvious among themselves and/or 'the learned'.

US Constitution, Article I, sec. 3, clause 3:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have ... been nine years a Citizen of the United States ....

....
I guess there is a point ...

Articles of Confederation - 1778.

Constitution for the United States - 1787.

Difference in years: nine years.

more below

...a natural born citizen of some other of the United States... (From the previously-quoted act of Philadephia of 1790)

It may be that in the bits Shoonra quoted that it was intended to mean the same that State of Philadelphia meant by "citizen of some of other of the United States" or rather a 'state citizen' as opposed to a 'federal citizen'.