Adams papers, Lee family papers to prove NBC in Constitution came from Vattel?

Knock it off with the name calling.

Vattel never said the definition you guys like to quote so much applied in England.

They had to resort to basic natural, international law because each state was its own effective nation, hence called a “state,” under the Articles of Confederation. And that is what they did.

They looked at international law and natural law theories. Then they formed their own laws. If they didn't develop "natural born citizen" as distinct from "citizens by birth" or "native-born citizens" it could be a sign that they didn't simply want to rely on Vattel's view as opposed to Blackstone's or some other view.

Whether citizenship requires a native-born father or mother or birth inside the country isn't an essential point of natural law that would override two centuries of a country's legal practices.

It really isn't a question determined by international law theories, as opposed to the laws a country makes for itself. And it isn't a question of human rights that would justify overturning established laws.

From what I've seen of Vattel he presents his theory of how citizenship should be defined and determined, but he admits that different countries do things differently.

Vattel says that in England a foreigners children can be "naturalized" by birth there. One of the commentators says that the children of foreigners resident in Britain would be born citizens, with no "naturalization" necessary.

I can't vouch for the details, but it looks like 1) Vattel's theories don't coincide with the British tradition which is closer to our own, and 2) Vattel would admit that his theories were just that -- what he thought should be, not what was true in various nations of the world.

I agree with the idea that citizenship shouldn't simply be extended to "anchor babies" who just happen to be born here to non-citizen parents who just happen to be passing through. But the notion that a child born here to an American mother is a second class citizen if his father wasn't a citizen is one that no court would accept now.

The Supreme Court addressed this question in the 19th century: there were two kinds of citizens -- native-born (natural-born) and naturalized. In Minor v. Happersett 1874 they acknowledged "doubts" about whether a native born citizen had to be the child of parents born in the country. It was a gray area.

Later on the court stopped acknowledging the "doubts." If you want to reopen the question, go ahead, but what was a gray area then isn't going to be black and white now.

Knock it off with the illiteracy. It’s a universal definition. Are you really this stupid, or are you just acting?

that’s right, you idiot. these babies are naturalized at birth NOT natural born

Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824

(It)Our Revolution….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…

READ HOW THE OBSCURANTIST, OBOT CLOWN, ABOVE, DISTORTED AND TRIES TO PERVERT THE MEANING OF MINOR V HAPPERSETT
NOW READ THE TRUTH:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Unanimous opinion of the court. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

Later on the court stopped acknowledging the "doubts." If you want to reopen the question, go ahead, but what was a gray area then isn't going to be black and white now.

Don't want to get into all the finery of research, because I'm not privy to all that is being unearthed, but if it were a gray area, it would not have been spelled out by John Jay using that phrase as a safeguard against the event of a Commander in Chief with foreign allegiance, now would it.

There are not many points of natural law more obvious than the natural transmission of social identity from father to son.

By natural societal ontology respected of the time of the framers (hence the Vattel documentation) BHO-II was born: 1. Barack, 2. Obama, 3. Luo, 4. Kenyan, 5. subject of the United Kingdom.

You can argue that you don't or that America does not currently regard natural law with the level of respect of the framers, but you cannot deny either their understanding nor intentions and neither can any intellectually honest federal court.

As opposed to whatever kind of obscurantist, clown bot you are? I misread the case. That sometimes happens when one try to figure things out on one's own, rather than rely on hearsay.

The Court did establish in Minor v. Happersett that there were two kinds of citizenship, not three. If I've now read it correctly it said that children born here to citizen parents are citizens and that there were doubts that it didn't want to resolve about whether the children of non-citizens born here were citizens.

But it didn't say that one had to be the child of citizen parents to be a citizen or a native-born citizen or that "natural born citizens" were different from "native-born citizens" or "citizens by birth." Later courts would go further in not drawing a line between "natural born citizens" and citizens by birth.

"Knock it off with the illiteracy. It’s a universal definition. Are you really this stupid, or are you just acting?"

The reason people act like you are, instead of making rational arguments is because they have no rational arguments. You think if you just act like a big enough ass nobody will notice you don't know what you are talking about. Too bad.

Vattel did not say it was a universal definition. He noted differences in different countries. We know that in fact some countries followed jus sanguinis and some jus soli.

So you are wrong. All your name calling and abusiveness won't change that.

Have you figured out the difference between “definition” and “rule” yet?

I am not being abusive by pointing out your abysmal ignorance and illiteracy. I am encouraging you to better yourself.

Figuring out the difference between those two words can be the first step to a literate mlo!

Good luck!

Who becomes president if Barack Obama or whatever his real name is, is found to be a usurper? Not Joseph Biden? He is complicit

Under the Constitution, it would be Biden. Sure, he'd likely have been complicit, but that's not an Art II section 1 disqualifier. It might be a high crime or misdomeaner under Art II section 4, and thus grounds for impeachment. But until that could be accomplished, Biden would be acting as President. By the time all that gets sorted out, we might be into the next Congress, and if it's majority Republican, then impeachement might follow. Before then however, Biden would have selected a new VP, and she'd likely be confirmed by the Senatate per amendment XXV section 2. Unlikely to be elected in her own right in 2012 however.

"They used it as an imperfect map, not as the mandates of a design."

They came pretty darn close with the (first part of the) Declaration of Independence.

I'm researching the connections between the Declaration of Independence and Vattel. If you have any links or insight to this topic, please let me know.