Originally published anonymously in 1905, this poignant essay from Mark Twain is still remarkably applicable to modern America.

Is there such a thing as Christian citizenship? No, but it could be created. The process would be quite simple, and not productive of hardship to any one. It will be conceded that every man's first duty is to God; it will also be conceded, and with strong emphasis, that a Christian's first duty is to God. It then follows, as a matter of course, that it is his duty to carry his Christian code of morals to the polls and vote them. Whenever he shall do that, he will not find himself voting for an unclean man, a dishonest man. Whenever a Christian votes, he votes against God or for Him, and he knows this quite well. God is an issue in every election; He is a candidate in the person of every clean nominee on every ticket; His purity and His approval are there, to be voted for or voted against, and no fealty to party can absolve His servant from his higher and more exacting fealty to Him; He takes precedence of party, duty to Him is above every claim of party.

Sir William Blackstone is often praised for laying the groundwork for American jurisprudence with his Commentaries on the Laws of England.  Blackstone's Commentaries were one of the most widely read books in the colonies, and his views of the laws of England were often incorporated into the laws of America.  One portion of Blackstone's Commentaries that has largely been forgotten by modern legal scholars but which played a significant role in forming the thought of founding fathers like James Wilson was Blackstone's answer to the question of where laws come from.  What follows is a condensed version of Blackstone's somewhat loquacious answer to that question.

Conservatism is the philosophy that the wisdom of the past is still just as applicable today as it was then.  Conservatism is an ancient wisdom in itself, for every age has its conservatives and liberals, and it is always the conservatives who succeed and pass their wisdom down to the next age where some new brand of liberals will rise up to challenge that wisdom once again. 

One of the most fascinating things about the Old Testament is the fact that God established a republican government in ancient Israel.  Most people today think that Israel had a standard monarchical form of government, but that was not the case.  Israel (and Judah) never had a true monarchy.  Throughout their history, they were always a republican nation characterized by popular elections of their rulers.  (For more on this topic see my free eBook The Bible and the Constitution.)
 
When God established Israel’s government, He also taught the Jews how to choose the right kind of leaders.  Those instructions can be found in Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13, and Deuteronomy 17:15-20.  The qualifications listed in these and other passages are not difficult. There were thousands of men in Israel who met them. God intentionally set the standard low so that the various offices could be filled. He gave the Jews a list of the barest minimum standards that would allow their government to function with good men in positions of leadership.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship

During the latter half of the 19th century, the Republican controlled congress passed several laws which were known collectively as the Chinese Exclusion Acts.  These acts were designed specifically to prevent Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and in August, 1895, Wong Kim Ark who had been born in America to Chinese parents was forbidden entry back into the United States.  The U.S. attorney claimed that Wong was not a citizen because he was born to parents who were subjects of Emperor of China.  Thus their child was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even though he was born within the borders of America.   The Supreme Court stated the question to be decided as:

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil

As the debate over this section of the proposed amendment drew to a close, Senator Hendricks asked if he could pose one more question to Sen. Trumbull.  Sen. Hendricks wanted to know if it was true that the government of the United States could choose at any time to govern the Indians by direct law thus bringing them under our jurisdiction.  This was a very insightful question, and the responses from Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard to this question solidified the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as a requirement for birthright citizenship.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction
The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction

Sen. Trumbull did not stop with just these few statements in his explanation for why the Indians were not within the jurisdiction of the United States, but his train of argument was interrupted by Senator Wade who asserted that certain Indians should be made citizens by the proposed amendment.  Sen. Trumbull actually agreed with Sen. Wade and explained that if some Indians were to buy land in Colorado, for example, and

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment
The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction

Senator Howard’s proposal received two objections in the Senate debate.  First, Senator Doolittle asked if the proposed amendment would grant citizenship to the children of Indians.  Then, Senator Cowan asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of undesirable foreigners.  We will consider the responses to both of these challenges beginning with the question about the amendment’s application to Indians.

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment 

It was at this point in the citizenship debate that Sen. Howard offered his amendment to Section 1.  He proposed that an additional sentence be added to the section to clarify once and for all exactly which people could claim the rights which were guaranteed to citizens of the United States.  The amended section would read:

Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks
The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal 

At this point, Sen. Howard moved on to discussing the other sections of the proposed Amendment, but after he finished, Senator Benjamin Wade rose to address the Senate.  Sen. Wade proposed an amendment to Section 1 that would clarify the use of the word “citizen” in the proposed 14th Amendment.  He began by explaining that he had