Replies

And who has argued that a statute can change the law of nature?

You did.

"If it means that much to you, advocate for Congress to introduce a statute, or for a Constitutional amendment, to codify the definition of “natural born citizen” ...

Congress cannot change natural law, and not even a constitutional amendment can do that. It can change the eligibility requirements, but what you are suggesting is equivalent to an amendment that can change men into women.

It is beyond the power of law or amendment to do that.

However, it is within the powers of a country to decide who counts as a citizen, and who gets the privileges accorded to a citizen. Such authority lies with the Congress.

Congress has the power of "naturalization." They have no power at all to declare someone "natural born" who isn't. They can make all the citizens they want through "naturalization", but they can make none through nature.

Aren't you getting tired of citing the same book that you've been refuted on at least three times by my count?

Well you clearly have trouble with your understanding. The book has never been refuted by my count. It *IS* proof that this was what they intended in 1787.

You don't get much wronger than William Rawle was, and yet he is the most prominent "authority" upon which people have based this English law claims for natural born citizen.

You did.

No I didn't; I deny that the definition of "natural born citizen" is so fixed as to be dependent solely on natural law theory, as you argue.

Congress cannot change natural law, and not even a constitutional amendment can do that. It can change the eligibility requirements, but what you are suggesting is equivalent to an amendment that can change men into women. It is beyond the power of law or amendment to do that.

A law cannot change a man into a woman. But a law can change the criteria for citizenship.

They have no power at all to declare someone "natural born" who isn't.

The application of "natural born" can vary depending on what law system you follow: the "jus soli" from the English common law or the "jus sanguinis" of civil law. The English parliament had numerous instances of statutorily defining certain classes of subjects as "natural born".

Well you clearly have trouble with your understanding. The book has never been refuted by my count. It *IS* proof that this was what they intended in 1787.

You literally misattributed a page from one book to another, for starters.

You have nothing like it on your side. What you've got is William Rawle making the claim that citizenship is based on English common law in *1828*!!!. And he was wrong, and told by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court he was wrong in 1803! Unanimously! (Negress Flora vs Joseph Grainsberry.) You don't get much wronger than William Rawle was, and yet he is the most prominent "authority" upon which people have based this English law claims for natural born citizen.

I've seen so many sources and citations thrown your way over these past months on various threads that I can only conclude that you must be very forgetful (to be charitable).

But to be frank, your reliance on Vattel's understanding from a treatise on international law is outweighed by that which supports common law understanding (your incorrect claim that Rawle is the only source of such an understanding notwithstanding):

Also, just for fun, I decided to do a little bit of digging on this 1803 case that Rawle was a part of that you keep referencing.

First, Grainsberry is a typo; it was "negro Flora vs. Joseph Graisberry" per one source, and "negro Flora v. Graisberry's Executors" per another, and "Negress Flora v. Joseph Graisberry" from a third.

Second, based on review of what I can see, the case was petitioned by Flora in 1795 (with William Rawle as one of her counsels) with the view of establishing that slavery was incompatible with Pennsylvania's constitution. The details of the case, as disclosed in these sources, was about Flora's status as a slave in light of Pennsylvania's own state constitution.

From Legal Miscellany: "The High Court of Errors and Appeals and Negro Suffrage" —

[...]

From Cory James Young's doctorate dissertation "FOR LIFE OR OTHERWISE: ABOLITION AND SLAVERY IN SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, 1780-1847" —

(Of particular note, per the index of slavery cases in the PA Supreme Court included with this dissertation, "Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry" was not reported; as such, there does not seem to be an extant copy of the actual court case and judicial opinions in question.)

From Mary Stoughton Locke's 1901 book " Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)"—

And lastly, from the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (Volume 36, No. 2, published in 1912)—

All of these sources cited point to Rawle's argument being rejected not because of his arguments regarding "natural born citizenship", but rather that the very status of "slave" was not inconsistent with Pennsylvania's own constitution. In fact, the matter of who is and is not a "natural born citizen" is not mentioned even once.

Thus, I must ask: what evidence do you have supporting your repeated contention that the Flora v. Graisberry case can be construed as a rejection of the common law understanding of "natural born citizen"?