Posted on 04/23/2010 6:18:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
I think one has nothing directly to do with the other. In one case "natural" is contrasted to "supernatural", or you prefer, "miraculous" or "divine", and in the other is is contrasted to "by the laws of man". Even Constitutions are man-made laws.
In the Art. 2 of the Constitution, "natural" is being used in the same sense as Jefferson used "Law of Nature" in the Declaration of Independance.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I'm confused, can you quote the "before 7 September 1787" and the "after" versions of the passage in question?
A Natural Born Citizen is a Citizen not made by Law. What do u think about that..
The words natural born citizen or citizen..were in the first drafts..of the constitution..
I have not looked to see what words were added first or if they were added the same time..but..i found a document dated 4 sept..with both requirements..meaning they are different..
On 7 sept..”or a citizen”..was approved to be removed..leaving natural born citizen..
|:>)
I don’t understand how vattel applies specifically to the definition of “natural born citizen”
|:>)
////////
I know you know. But kindly educate me. Likely there’s a line or two in there that defines natural born citizen. Then you have to establish that the framers referenced vattel as to the definition of natural born citizen.
It doesn’t but don’t let the word get out.
did u see the 1759 English edition of vattel?
Vattels Law of Nations was strongly influenced by Leibnitz and Christian von Wolff
1759 Vittal English edition located..need to verify it..it is posted..not sure if all of it is on line..but we can find from the source its location..
The table of contents translates the 212 paragraph indegenes to citizen...
parts of the 1759 english edition is posted..in the natural born citizen..it translates the word we are looking for..need to verify it.
http://www.ilabdatabase.com/member/catalogues.php3?catnr=3310&membernr=1661
Law Book Collector: Has 9 Vattel Books
various years.
. 33 Terminal Avenue . Clark . New Jersey 07066-1321 .
. Tel: 732-382-1800; Toll Free 800-422-6686 in USA or Canada .
. Fax: 732-382-1887 .
. Email: law@lawbookexchange.com .
Any one want to send him an e mail regarding the elusive 1760 Edition. He does not list it.
This web site mentions the 1760 Edition:
http://www.duhaime.org/lawmuseum/lawarticle-589/emerich-de-vattel-17141767.aspx
I screwed up posting the 1759 Edition.
The 1759 edition and the 1760 one are the same translation. It's just that they went to print with Volume I before they had finished translating Volume II. It's no wonder the translation suffers in spots.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
From "Law of Nations",Volume I, section 212. Now I know that is the 1793/97 translation. But the founders had the original French version, which many of them could read and translate for themselves, The later translation is just better in this instance. The original French said (less diacritical marks, sorry about that) :
Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
Now do you see a footnote associated with “natural born citizen” that references vattel Law of Nations”,Volume I, section 212
Do you see any to anything else?
Vattel was mentioned many times during the Consittutional convention. But since they never discussed nor debated the clause in question, except perhaps in the committees which did not keep notes or other records, there is no such mention of this definiton. Nor of any other. No footnote mentioning some common law principal or case, no referance to some English case law. So that cuts both ways.
We know that as soon afterwords as 1814, The Supreme Court, in the person of Justice Marshall, quotes that particular section of Vattel as to the meaning of "natives", which was the same thing as "naturales" in the the sentence in "Law of Nations" section 212.
The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Law of Nature. London: printed for J. Newbery ... [and 8 others], 1759-1760.
This is an English translation of the French Le Droit des Gens: ou, Principes de la Loi Naturelle, which first appeared two years earlier. Vattel’s intention was to bring Wolff’s ideas to a wider audience; however, some critics believe Vattel’s own ideas on international law are more sophisticated than Wolff’s. Nussbaum, for example, praises Vattel’s discussion of the law of neutrality as superior, and adds that,”Vattel’s attitude is more humanitarian, more cosmopolitan, and ... even democratic.”x
First published: 1758
Other editions in the Riesenfeld Research Center:
Le Droit des Gens, ou, Principes de la Loi Naturelle, 1758
Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, 1773
Le Droit des Gens, ou, Principes de la Loi Naturelle, 1775
Bttt....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.