Replies

Vattel as one example - goes the other way and carves out an exception to the absolute rule you are attempting to establish - because one born overseas to a soldier or diplomat cannot be considered to have parents who “quit” their home country.

Vattel 212 - indigenous or native citizens - translated after the Constitution to “natural born” - establishes the criteria - Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.

Another example going another way is English law - where the child of any parentage born under the authority of England was “natural born”. No translation needed for that one - they said “natural born” in the language and the law our founders were familiar with and the law our founders who were lawyers practiced under.

So where IS there an example of an authority establishing the concrete criteria you so desperately need that would render McCain ineligible?

Vattel’s criteria were not as concrete as you wish - he showed where someone born out of country would fit the criteria under the natural law concept that one serving his nation overseas has not “quit” his nation in the same way as someone who went overseas for his own interests.

Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.
As long as there are no laws stating otherwise as Vattel noted in
215 Children of citizens born in a foreign country...
...the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

What was the law when McCain was born?

“Vattel as one example - goes the other way and carves out an exception to the absolute rule you are attempting to establish - because one born overseas to a soldier or diplomat cannot be considered to have parents who “quit” their home country.”

Once again you are making a false statement by misrepresentation of what Vattel wrote. The “reputed” makes the clear distinction that the person is “reputed” and not actually a natural born citizen.

“Vattel 212 - indigenous or native citizens - translated after the Constitution to “natural born” - establishes the criteria - Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.”

Your statement is false and obviously so because “reputed” to be a natural born citizen clearly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen who is nonetheless treated and thereby “reputed” as if they were a natural born citizen.

“Another example going another way is English law - where the child of any parentage born under the authority of England was “natural born”. No translation needed for that one - they said “natural born” in the language and the law our founders were familiar with and the law our founders who were lawyers practiced under.”

Now there are statements so replete with your repeated ad nauseum falsehoods as to exasperate the most patient of people. As you have been shown so many times before, the English commentators such as Lord Coke, Blackstone, and others all recognized the differences between a subject made and a subject born while observing the subject made was “deemed” or as Vattel described “reputed” to be natural born citizens, whereas an actual or true natural born citizen was described as a subject born and not as a subject made. You are essentially attempting to deceive and lie by the omission of what the legal commentators fully had to say about the differences between an actual natural born subject or citizen versus a person styled as a natural born citizen despite not actually being a natural born citizen.

The lawyers of the United States were variously accustomed to practicing the customs and laws of the American colonies in North America. These customs and laws embraced first and foremost the customs and laws created in the American colonies separately and often uniquely from any European or other source of custom and law. Generally speaking, these American customs and laws were sometimes adapted from English, French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Swedish, and Amerindian customs and laws; but they were nonetheless continued forward with adaptations and inclusions of natural law and American innovations. To characterize the American jurisprudence as being dominated by precedents in English custom and law is a major falsehood and gross misrepresentaton of the reality of an independent American legal system.

“So where IS there an example of an authority establishing the concrete criteria you so desperately need that would render McCain ineligible?”

The irreducible fact requiring no sovereign order, public law, or legal statute to recognize the commonsense reality that a child born with no obligation of allegiance or loyalty to more than one sovereign is born in nature with only one possible allegiance to the one sovereign of the child's parents. Any condition in which citizenship is conferred by a man-made act results in an unnatural born citizen, whether or not the unnatural born citizen is afforded the courtesy title of being “reputed” or “deemed” as if the child were a natural born citizen.

“Vattel’s criteria were not as concrete as you wish - he showed where someone born out of country would fit the criteria under the natural law concept that one serving his nation overseas has not “quit” his nation in the same way as someone who went overseas for his own interests.”

That is nothing more than your false assertions based upon your own false statements and deliberate misrepresentations of the quotations.