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):
A law cannot change a man into a woman. But a law can change the criteria for citizenship. It can make someone a citizen. It cannot make them a natural citizen.
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.
This is correct. The English had their own version of "natural law" in which it was natural to be ruled by a King who was appointed by God to rule over everyone.
But we forked away from that version to the one that said men had a right to rule themselves.
The English parliament had numerous instances of statutorily defining certain classes of subjects as "natural born".
"Subjects."
I dare say you will have a hard time finding a contemporary account where Parliament declared anyone a "citizen." In the English of the day, "citizen" meant "denizen of a city." Someone who lived in a city.
Their "natural law" dealt solely with "subjects" who were required to have perpetual allegiance to the King.
Our forking over to "citizen" meant we were going Republican, not Monarchist.
You literally misattributed a page from one book to another, for starters.
Disagree. I reject the claims that that book was not based on the report of the Judges. That is just straw grasping from those of you who want to ignore the significance of the fact that the author cited the judges as the source of his information contained in his book.
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).
If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.
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
Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.
(your incorrect claim that Rawle is the only source of such an understanding notwithstanding):
Never said he was the only one. Said he was the most influential. He had the greatest effect.
...suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution.
Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself.
The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.
I would respond to more of your quotes, but because it is an image, it is difficult to quote, so I do not feel so inclined to retype everything to which I would like to respond.
I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place!
Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem.