National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.

Snip~

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”

Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

[Fantasywriter]

I’m almost out of posting time for tonight, RC, but I followed the link anyway. You were right! The very first line from the judge says her parents were naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth on US soil. No dispute whatsoever; thanks again for the great link!

NG, you are spreading misinformation. That is the MO of a troll. You should be both ashamed & more honest in the future.

[MHGinTN]

He’s a liar and a fraud just like his little barry basatrd boy. But apparently that sort is now accepted at FR, to perhaps liven up the place. They’re merely disgusting vermin by calculus.

[Nero Germanicus]

Here’s what I found when I searched for Perkins v. Elg:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html#329

As anyone can clearly see, the first line of the syllabus for Perkins v. Elg at the Supreme Court says:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Perkins v. Elg
No. 454
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939*
307 U.S. 325
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.

If the syllabus is incorrect, I apologize but I was not “lying,” I was simply relying on justia.com as an authoritative source.

[Fantasywriter]

How is it that you don’t know about the Justia scandal?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

Stanley’s disabling of the Wayback Machine is an admission of guilt. Make that an admission of greater guilt. He’s already been nailed on Minor, so he can’t be hiding that. Rather, he’s hiding a plethora of other changes/deletions he made to prevent researchers from finding out Obama is ineligible.

What does it tell you, that Stanley would go to such extreme measures to make Obama *appear* to be eligible?

Here is the cite RC provided re: Elg:

“Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

No mention of alien parents, is there? Quite the opposite, in fact.

So how IS it that you don’t know about Stanley prostituting himself for Obama? I thought all conservatives interested in Obama’s eligibility were well aware of it.

[Nero Germanicus]

There are lots of things that I don’t know about. Just ask my wife. I make no claim to omniscience.

[Fantasywriter]

Okay. Nevertheless, when a resource as supposedly reliable as Justia goes to this length to protect Obama it is a major story. I, beling a conservative, would have had to hide out under a rock the past couple of yrs in order not to hear about it.

Sure, you might say, any number of resources/entities have gone to marathon lengths to protect Obama; what is one more among so many?

The fact that Stanley’s corruption—the part we know about, anyway—deals specifically w Obama & NBC is revealing. Why bother to degrade his own resource—& then attempt to cover the evidence of having done so—if no threat existed?

Stanley is admitting Obama had problems. W Stanley’s help O’s eligibility issues were downplayed at a crucial juncture. Moreover, we have no way of knowing how much more evidence Stanley deleted or outright lied about. He’s making it as hard as possible to find out. That alone should give any honest party doubts.

[DiogenesLamp]

Du Ponceau's letter describes his February journeys with Lewis, Dallas, Ingersoll, Rawle and Tilghman to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those six Philadelphia lawyers shared a stagecoach and also shared the bumps and bruises inflicted by three-days travel in each direction, much of it over rugged forest roads. How did those preeminent Philadelphia lawyers conduct themselves on their way to the highest court in the land? Du Ponceau's letter tells us that "as soon as we were out of the city, and felt the flush of air, we were like school boys on the play ground on a holiday; and we began to kill time by all the means that our imagination could suggest." They sang, made outrageous puns, told jokes and generally made fun of each other.

In February 1808, after Rawle and Du Ponceau had argued opposite sides of the McIlvaine case, their courtroom argument was resumed in the stagecoach on the way back to Philadelphia. Rawle had argued in court that, although the British subject had sworn allegiance to Britain, the revolution acted as a new birth and that he became a citizen, albeit against his own will. Du Ponceau had responded that he had "never heard of a surgical operation, by which the subject was extracted from the womb, with the revolutionary forceps." Sharp comments about "forceps" flashed back and forth among the six passengers. The driver was so caught up in the quick exchanges of wit that he failed to see a tree stump in the road. The coach nearly overturned. The driver was thrown from his seat and the horses ran uncontrolled toward a dangerous bridge across a river. All six lawyers leaped from the hurtling stagecoach and went sprawling across the Maryland countryside. Had it not been for an honest and resourceful farmer who later found and returned the horses and stage, it would have been a long walk to Baltimore.

Du Ponceau's letter makes it clear that a strong camaraderie developed among those six lawyers. They not only traveled to the Supreme Court as a unit but they also arrived at court together and they left together. And Justice Bushrod Washington, who had read the law in Philadelphia, welcomed them with the proud declaration, "This is my bar."

William Lewis Taught Du Ponceau the legal trade. Lewis also taught Samuel Roberts. (Who wrote the Digest of British Statutes in force in Pennsylvania) Lewis was also Partners with Alexander J. Dallas. William Tilghman was one of the Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme court who's work was cited in the book by Roberts. Jared Ingersoll was good friends with Benjamin Franklin, whom he met in Paris when Franklin was ambassador there. Jared Ingersoll also wrote a book about International law in which he cites Grotius, Locke and Vattel, but no Blackstone.

Justice Washington is the same Justice Washington that cites Vattel regarding citizenship in the case of "The Venus."

The point is, Rawle appears to be an outlier in his understanding of Natural law and US citizenship law specifically. For Whatever reason he seemed to disdain Vattel. (Try a google search for Rawle citing Vattel.)

Link:

[Ray76]

Vattel was influential in the area of international relations and international law.

Precisely.

Upon the Declaration of Independence each of the colonies became separate independent sovereign states.

After the Revolution those sovereign states joined in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles dealt primarily with mutual defense, amity between states, coinage, diplomatic and international issues. Each state retained its sovereignty.[Article II]

Subsequently the Constitution was adopted. State sovereignty continued to be retained by Amendment X reservation of state powers.

These sovereign states have adopted two frames of government both of which retain state sovereignty and neither of which adopt the English common law, in whole or in part.

The reason is obvious: the common law of England is ill suited to relations between sovereign states.

Relations between sovereign states is best dealt with by the law of nations.

The United States is a compound republic. The Constitution defines how the sovereign states relate to each other as well as to the national government and it to them. The national government handles international affairs.

The system of government defined by the Constitution is unknown to the common law of England and utterly beyond its ken.

The Founders and Framers did not include the English common law in either of our two frames of government.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of the laws of nature, upon which the law of nations is built. The Constitution cites the laws of nations.

The national government is based on the law of nations, it was Founded and Framed so.

There is a new thing under the sun: our republics.

We instituted a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as seems most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.

[Ray76]

Excellent research. And interesting relationships.

I have some reading to do!

[Jeff Winston]

Precisely.

Upon the Declaration of Independence each of the colonies became separate independent sovereign states.

FINALLY.

FINALLY, you make an intelligent argument.

I don't know how, after that complete clunker of a last post you just made, but THIS one is actually an intelligent argument.

It's ultimately not going to pass muster, but at least it's intelligent. Enough.

You are trying to construct some theoretical framework on which you can hang your claim: That we paid attention to Vattel, it takes two citizen parents, etc., etc.

And what you have just enunciated here is not a terribly bad theory.

But there's a problem with your entire approach.

And it's really the fundamental problem, the fundamental mistake made by everyone who makes the same claim you do.

You start with either the claim or the theory.

In other words, you start by saying, "I know what the Founding Fathers would have done." Or, "I have a theory for how citizenship OUGHT to work. It ought to take 'the highest level of allegiance.'"

So you begin either by assuming the thing you want to prove, or you begin with some THEORY which leads directly and absolutely to it.

Both are variations of the same thing.

What you DON'T do is say, "Hey. Let's go back and look dispassionately at HISTORY, including the history of our LAWS, and FIND OUT what the Founding Fathers and Framers ACTUALLY DID, based on the EVIDENCE of what they did."

And THAT is the fundamental mistake.

Historically, there is ALMOST NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS, THE FRAMERS, OR THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE IN GENERAL (you know, the ones who actually RATIFIED the Constitution and turned it into law) EVER PAID THE SLIGHTEST ATTENTION TO VATTEL WHEN IT CAME TO CITIZENSHIP, OR THAT THEY EVER USED OR EVEN THOUGHT OF YOUR THEORY AT ALL.

And there is a LOT of evidence that they did not.

Theoretically, it is said, bumblebees can't fly.

But they do.

When you are dealing with history, you can't start with a theory of what you WANT it to mean and think you're necessarily going to come to an accurate understanding.

It's not what the Founding Generation "would" do, or what they "ought" to have done, according to your judgment in the year 2013.

It's what they ACTUALLY DID.

[Ray76]

And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.

Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

State law is not incorporated into United States law.

[Ray76]

Elsewhere in the book, he says that the English common law is generally in force in the State of Pennsylvania.

Well... guess what was always a part of the common law?

The rule for citizenship.

Immaterial.

State laws are not incorporated into United States law. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.)

English common law is not in force in the United States government.

[Jeff Winston]

English common law is not in force in the United States government.

That is correct.

However, Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) said that we had a rule of citizenship by AMERICAN common law, which was derived from the common, common law of ALL of the States.

And the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found no exception to this, but quoted Sandford approvingly, and then stated explicitly that the same rule had always applied.

First, in England, as English common law.

Then, in the Colonies, as English (and colonial) common law in the Colonies.

Then, in the States, as State (and United States) common law after the Declaration of Indpendence.

And finally, in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution.

And I've been thinking about your previous argument. It's the best argument I've seen you produce, but it still fails, even from a theoretical point of view.

The argument is that our definition of citizenship came from international law, because the original thirteen States were independent, sovereign States. Therefore (the argument goes) international law would have applied to any definition of citizenship set up for the United States as a whole, and we would have used Vattel's idea of citizenship.

But even from a theoretical point of view, the argument fails. Pretty miserably.

First of all, Vattel was certainly an influential writer on international law (or the "law of nations"). In fact, he was (later) quoted quite a bit in court cases. But the Founding Fathers seem to have talked more about the law of nations ideas of Pufendorf and Grotius than about Vattel's.

And Pufendorf and Grotius weren't by any means the only other writers on the law of nations.

So if you want to argue that international law, or the law of nations, determined our American definition of citizenship, then we might just as well have gotten our ideas from someone other than Vattel.

You really can't claim that we got our idea of citizenship from Vattel without producing SOME evidence from the time of the Founding, or from Founding sources, that actually SAYS we got our idea of national citizenship from Vattel.

FROM THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, OR FROM FOUNDING SOURCES.

Or at the very least, AUTHORITATIVE sources that can trace their authority back to that generation.

Secondly, the Constitution means what it meant to those who RATIFIED it. THEY were the ones who put it into law.

So unless you can show that THOSE people understood "citizen" to mean what Vattel (specifically) said, then your claim is a TOTAL NON-STARTER.

Third (and very importantly) even if one majorly pushes the envelope to accept the EXTREMELY doubtful idea that we somehow got our idea of citizenship from Vattel (specifically) Vattel himself gives his opinion of what citizenship ought to be, but says that every country has the right to set their own rules, and in some countries such as England (specifically) THE RULE IS DIFFERENT from his own idea.

So even Vattel acknowledges that the rules for citizenship were different in England - and by extension, in the English colonies that became American colonies.

Again, when you put together a bunch of colonies, or independent States, and ALL of them have the EXACT SAME RULE for citizenship, then unless SOMEBODY has made it damn clear that the rule is going to be changed on the new national level, the ONLY thing you can presume is that the new nation has adopted the EXACT SAME rule as has always applied in all of its parts.

And that is PRECISELY, EXACTLY what the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT says we did.

So your latest argument, while it's the best you have yet produced, fails as well as all of your previous arguments.

Even at the theoretical level.

It's certainly FAR more intelligent than your twisting of the 1779 Virginia law, though. I will give you that much credit for it.

[Ray76]

In other words, there is good evidence that every single one of the original 13 Colonies promptly adopted the English common law, except to the degree that it conflicted with new laws that they passed.

False

Connecticut did not adopt English common law. Connecticut made their own laws:

The Fundamental Orders, Cl. 10 (1638) "In which said General Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Commonwealth, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them"

St. George Tucker (Blackstone, Note E) tells of a man brought to trial in Hartford for castrating his master's son. The court could find no law to punish him. The lawyers quoted the English statute against maiming; the court were of opinion that statute did not reach the colony because it had not been passed in the general assembly. Castration was mayhem at the common law. The court neither considered the common law nor the statute of Mayhem in force in Connecticut.

Connecticut did not adopt English common law.

Still have doubts? See Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-1 "since Connecticut never adopted the common law"

www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap001.htm

[Jeff Winston]

Okay.

But in regard to citizenship, Connecticut adopted THE EXACT SAME RULE AS THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE OTHER STATES.

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795)

Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject."

Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

[Ray76]

I have told you:

• The common law of England is not incorporated into United States law.
• The common law of England is different among the states
• In no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.

Don't take my word for it, here's an early US legal expert.

Tucker's Blackstone

Note E. Of The Unwritten, or Common Law of England and its Introduction Into, and Authority Within The United States

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.

Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

All emphasis added.

[Ray76]

I’ll take the authority of the State of Connecticut over Swift.

[Ray76]

Correcting links:

The common law of England is not incorporated into United States law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001114/posts?page=495#495

The common law of England is different among the states
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001114/posts?page=469#469

In no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001114/posts?page=469#469

[Jeff Winston]

And I've told YOU, already, and more than once, I believe, that while it is GENERALLY TRUE that the United States as a federal government DID NOT incorporate the English common law, the following things are ALSO TRUE:

Now please try to pay attention. If you think you can refute the following FACTS, then you are welcome to try. Of course, they are FACTS, and they are DOCUMENTED, so any attempt to refute them is going to fail. And since they ARE facts, you're going to have to deal with them, or you should simply admit that you prefer fantasy to reality.

1. Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the 1844 New York State case, made the first known extensive examination in a court of law, of the question of citizenship in the United States.

He concluded that the exact same rule for citizenship, derived from the old English common law, had been adopted IN EVERY STATE of the Union.

He concluded that that rule formed an AMERICAN COMMON LAW for citizenship, and that that rule of AMERICAN COMMON LAW applied for the United States as a whole, since it was uniform throughout the entire country.

He concluded that by that rule, children born in the United States, even of non-citizen parents, were natural born citizens.

He also concluded, and explicitly stated that such children were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS under the Constitution, and that they WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY.

2. The first and only real consideration of the same question by the US Supreme Court was in 1898, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.

They spent DOZENS of pages on considering the issue from all possible points of view, including a review of Sandford's ruling, which they quoted approvingly:

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

Did you get that?

I will repeat it, since it does not seem to be sinking in with you.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SPEAKING.

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution.

I will repeat it again. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAID IT SURE LOOKED TO THEM AS IF NOBODY HAD EVER CONTESTED OR EVEN DOUBTED THAT THE CHILDREN BORN HERE OF NON-CITIZENS WERE THEMSELVES UNITED STATES CITIZENS FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR BIRTH.

For more than 50 years after the Constitution was written.

The Court continues:

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.

I will repeat THAT for you. THE SAME DOCTRINE WAS REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED.

The Court continues, quoting Chancellor Kent:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.

Let me spell THIS out for you, since you are apparently too obtuse to understand it for yourself.

Natives are ALL persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.

That EXPLICITLY INCLUDES THE CHILDREN BORN HERE OF NON-CITIZENS, unless the parents are ambassadors.

So right there we have a definition of what "jurisdiction" and "allegiance" includes. IT INCLUDES THE CHILDREN BORN HERE OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS.

The Supreme Court also states:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

So YES, you are correct that WE DID NOT ADOPT THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW WHOLESALE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

But that doesn't matter in the least in regard to this particular issue, because we DID adopt as part of our AMERICAN COMMON LAW the same ancient rule for citizenship.

And that FACT has been AFFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

You can continue to spin and deny and propagandize all you want, but all of your denial is nothing more than passing gas into the wind.

And as you do spin and deny and propagandize, don't pretend that you're doing so as a CONSERVATIVE. Because CONSERVATIVES CONSERVE that which our Founding Fathers gave us. They don't attempt to deny it and rewrite it to please themselves.

That may be something that goofy liberals do, who want to get rid of our Constitution. But it's not something that CONSERVATIVES do.

So you might as well stop pretending to be acting like a conservative. Because all you want to do is rewrite the Constitution to make it say what you WANT it to say.

[DiogenesLamp]

Connections:

James Wilson, along with Benjamin Franklin, was a Delegate to the US Constitutional convention. He was also a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature which Ratified the US Constitution.

In looking through his writings I stumbled across this comment from him.(James Wilson Lectures on Law, 1790-1791)

“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle,* “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.

I looked up the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. (Replaced in 1790) It says:

SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed.

SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.

And Guess who happened to be President of the Pennsylvania Constitutional convention of 1776? It was Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin, who was good friends with Charles W.F. Dumas and Used his version of Vattel's "Droit des Gens" as a secret code book with which to communicate with our agents in Europe.

Do you know who else was a member of the Philadelphia convention that created the Pennsylvania constitution in September of 1776? Thomas Smith. The Same Thomas Smith who was later on the Supreme Court of Pennyslvania, and who's work Samuel Roberts incorporated into his book "A Digest of Select British laws comprising those which according to the report of the Judges of the Supreme Court ... Appear to be in Force in Pennsylvania."

So Apparently Pennsylvanian legal authorities James Wilson, Thomas Smith and Benjamin Franklin recognized citizenship by descent, so how did RAWLE get it so wrong? (He appears to have waited till most of the REAL authorities were safely dead.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Aristotle defined a citizen to be one who's parents are citizens. (Book III section II)

But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...

But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;