Replies

Our founders were clearly well aware of Vattel and the principles of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis but it's not 100% clear that they accepted his definition of NBC in its entirety. What seems quite clear to me is that the English common law understanding of NBC was widely accepted at the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence and at the adoption of the Constitution and that NBC understanding is that, with few exceptions, any child born within the kings dominion and/or jurisdiction is a natural born English subject. The only difference here is that we prefer to call a subject a citizen.

There is A LOT of historical evidence that supports this.

There is a big difference between a citizen and a subject. At least there used to be.A subject is subordinate to the King. A Citizen is the ruling power as we have no king. i deed our declaration of independence declared for all time, WE THE PEOPLE. Some prefer to accept the English Common Law version, but to all the documentation surrounding the constitutional committee and written by its members, I cannot see how any other assumption can be made but that Vattel was THE source of the wording of natural born citizen.
There is just simply overwhelming evidence and the Law of Nations was cited in Article I, Section 8. Vattel is cited over and over in a long stream of Supreme court Cases and it is well known that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Jay, and numerous others had copies of The Law of Nations in their possession.
It is true that Blackstone was also present in the Congressional library together with The Law of Nations as there is a record of said purchases, however that was some years later....in the 90’s I believe. There is also a record of a strong dissent by one of the members of the committee who stated that English Law was NOT the foundation used in the constitution.

I would appreciate very much your citing references as to why it is not clear that they accepted Vattel’s definition of NBC ....and the words “in its entirety” are perplexing. Three words, Natural born citizen...in its entirety?????????
Seems a bit of a stretch.

Our founders were clearly well aware of Vattel and the principles of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis but it's not 100% clear that they accepted his definition of NBC in its entirety. What seems quite clear to me is that the English common law understanding of NBC was widely accepted at the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence and at the adoption of the Constitution and that NBC understanding is that, with few exceptions, any child born within the kings dominion and/or jurisdiction is a natural born English subject. The only difference here is that we prefer to call a subject a citizen. There is A LOT of historical evidence that supports this.

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

TO: RC one, Read the part of the article in the above link to see why your English Common Law argument just doesn't hold water.