Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

Huffington Post ^ | 02/02/2016 06:37 pm ET | Cristian Farias

[DiogenesLamp]

And in the next breath you'll cite to Samuel Roberts, a guy born in 1769 who published a work in 1817, who wasn't a Convention member (nor were any of the other judges).

I've been over all this before. (see what happens when you are a johnny come lately?) William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1787 that ratified the Constitution.

Samuel Robert's Legal education comes from William Lewis. You might remember him as one of William Rawle's co-counsels in the Pennsylvania freedom trials.

I will also point out that Philadelphia was the US Capitol when the US Constitution was written, (Declaration too.) so the legal community of Philadelphia probably has a better understanding of it than those of any other US City.

Pennsylvania also had a constitution that was written by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, et al, and that contained therein the exact same Vattel based Jus Sanguinus measures as are being discussed.

Beyond that, you sort of gloss right over the fact that Samuel Robert's book prominently displayed the names of all the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania, and attributes the information contained therein to their work. Roberts book was widely used throughout the Pennsylvania legal community.

Do you believe for a moment that this would pass unnoticed unless the information contained therein was correct?

It's not like Supreme Court Judges know how to sue anybody or issue "orders" or anything.

You really don't have a consistent argumentative bone in your body, do you?

And here you are once again accusing me of being "inconsistent", when demonstrably I am not. Samuel Roberts has direct provenance to a ratifying convention delegate. Vattel is even mentioned in the debate regarding the rights of a citizen.

[Cboldt]

-- And then there's Justice Joseph Story, who in his concurrence in Inglis v. Trustee's of Sailor's Snug Harbor wrote: --

With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.

The casual reader will notice that the term "subject" and the term "citizen" both appear in that passage. Is it your contention that Story is referring to "American subjects" in that passage?

-- My point being that all these state legislators failed to see this grand distinction you're trying to make between "subject" and "citizen." --

And the passage by Story is supposed to be another example of failing to see the distinction between "subject" and "citizen"?

[CpnHook]

The Declaration itself was a huge "Vattel-driven" change.

The Declaration isn't some singularity that has no preceding context. The movement towards independence was already well underway, and that was inspired by the works of many writers, notably including Locke. Good grief, even the very authority YOU have cited -- James Otis -- acknowledges that.

But in your typical, ad hoc and inconsistent fashion, you have to here IGNORE him in your foolish quest to elevate Vattel to unique status.

In addition to the opening premise of your argument being faulty, you have the added problem of merely then assuming that "natural born citizen" as understood and used within the Convention had some Vattel-based meaning even though 1) Jefferson was not in attendance, 2) in the period between the Declaration and the Convention many used "subject" and "citizen" in interchangeable fashion, and 3) the "it comes from Vattel" argument so obviously is some Internet-blog driven piece of anachronistic projection based on a translation of Vattel from 1796 first using the term "natural born citizen." It is an argument near devoid of actual historical support.

Again, your theory is convincing to you, but it is but a mere personal opinion that finds virtually no support among credentialed historians or legal scholars. Ramsey termed it correctly: "speculation."

[CpnHook]

The casual reader will notice that the term "subject" and the term "citizen" both appear in that passage. Is it your contention that Story is referring to "American subjects" in that passage?

My contention is that Story is taking the English jus soli (which as expressed in England was applied in reference to "subjects") and applying it to a person born in New York (potentially) after July 4, 1776. The point being that Story here (like many others) uses "subject" and "citizen" in interchangeable fashion without any felt need to then do some addendum about a supposed radically different nature existing between them.

And the passage by Story is supposed to be another example of failing to see the distinction between "subject" and "citizen"?

That, plus the more important point that here one of our most illustrious Supreme Court Justices ever very clearly applies the jus soli rule of the ECL, rather than some Vattel-based rule of partus sequitur patrem. The SCOTUS in WKA expressed it correctly that these terms are applied analogously. There may be points of differentiation between them one can observe, but as to the birth rule by which one becomes one or the other, the principle operates the same way. Story here says what the SCOTUS majority in WKA later makes formal (Gray even quotes the sentence from Story's concurrence that I highlighted "nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.").

[CpnHook]

William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1787 that ratified the Constitution.

And William Lewis left us with no direct statement by which he indicates one way or the other which view of "natural born citizen" he favored. Again, I'll note what Prof. Ramsey says:

First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear – as clear as we can be about these matters - that no widespread public

What you've got here is SPECULATION that that because there's a connection between Lewis and Samuel Roberts, that what Roberts writes in 1817 is what Lewis thought over two decades earlier.

Ted Cruz believes he is eligible. His Con Law teacher Tribe takes a view that isn't entirely consistent with Cruz's position. You can't blithely draw the equals sign between Lewis and Roberts simply on the view of a pedagogical connection.

Beyond that, you sort of gloss right over the fact that Samuel Robert's book prominently displayed the names of all the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania, and attributes the information contained therein to their work. Roberts book was widely used throughout the Pennsylvania legal community.

I've covered this point in-depth in the past. And, as so often is the case with you, you pulled your "I'm not goig to bother reading" evasion. (Funny how that happens with such predictability whenever the argument clearly is trending against you.) So here are some key points again for your edification:

What the PA judges in their words said about that work:

"The Report which [the judges] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the Profession, and in the public confidence; but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION, of the character of which is does not partake. The distinguished characters who have made the Report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it should be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English Statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice whatever may be urged on either side[.]" (Preface to First Edition, viii).

So the judges themselves state that this work has no value as precedent, and a later judicial decision will supersede their remarks.

And I also addressed your bit about Wm. Rawle:

In any event, it's a book about which English Statutes remain in force in the State of Pennsylvania; questions on citizenship which don't hinge on statutory construction are outside the scope of the project. Commentary on the later point is obiter dicta (within a book the authors characterize as being entirely obiter dicta). When William Rawle later pens his "A View of the Constitution," he's writing from the federal/Constitutional -- not state law -- perspective. And in writing on citizenship from that perspective, Rawle was not bound in any sense by what Roberts wrote, but was free (and no doubt did) take account of the more prevalent jus soli expressed by others.

Your "Rawle deliberately lied" point is another of your Sacred Cows that is getting eaten.

There. Take heed this time.

[CpnHook]

I forgot to add in a remark about this comment. How remiss of me, since it makes for such fun.

Pennsylvania also had a constitution that was written by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, et al, and that contained therein the exact same Vattel based Jus Sanguinus measures as are being discussed.

And that Pennsylvania constitution contains this:

SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

This is indeed hilarious. So both Franklin and Adams (the other two of the three most illustrious members of the Declaration Committee) both later have a hand in drafting state constitutions that retain the ECL, very-un-Vattel terminology ("natural born subject") you claim Jefferson wiped away with the stroke of his pen.

Good grief, do you READ the sources you cite? Or do you just blindly repeat what you've read on some Birther article? This is just one more to add to the list of sources you've misread or blatantly misquoted, which list includes James Otis, Joseph Story, and James F. Wilson.

Your incompetence is boundless.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Declaration isn't some singularity that has no preceding context. The movement towards independence was already well underway, and that was inspired by the works of many writers, notably including Locke. Good grief, even the very authority YOU have cited -- James Otis -- acknowledges that.

In the same sentence. Gee. I wonder what they had in common?

Of course only one of them used the word "Citizen."

In addition to the opening premise of your argument being faulty, you have the added problem of merely then assuming that "natural born citizen" as understood and used within the Convention had some Vattel-based meaning...

Demonstrated by the usage of the word "Citizen." Locke, and English common law both used the word "Subject."

even though 1) Jefferson was not in attendance,

Which has not a D@mn thing to do with anything.

2) in the period between the Declaration and the Convention many used "subject" and "citizen" in interchangeable fashion,

Better proof for my side than for yours. This was obviously a transition period where the word "Citizen" was slowly acclimating the populace to the change in their relationship to the government. The word "Subject" means "servant." The philosophical change is intended to demonstrates that each man is free and equal.

and 3) the "it comes from Vattel" argument so obviously is some Internet-blog driven piece of anachronistic projection based on a translation of Vattel...

The Declaration unquestionably is the result of Vattel's influence. Even your Fogbow kook friends have acknowledged that.

"Citizenship" comes from the Declaration of Independence.

Ergo, Citizenship is the product of a document and philosophy based on Vattel.

from 1796 first using the term "natural born citizen."

And that of course, is just they typical fogbow driven deception. Once again, the founders all read the book in French. The title of Chapter 19 is "Des citoyens et naturels". "Natural Citizens." The "born" part is an English leftover, but that is just an adjective for the word "Citizen" which is the noun.

John Jay grew up speaking French. Jefferson was fluent. It was considered a normal part of the education of a Gentleman at that time.

Are you going to make a valid point or something?

no support among credentialed historians or legal scholars.

I always find it funny when people trot out the old "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" in support of their losing effort to convince.

Maybe these authorities are just not diligent enough, or perhaps had some sort of Agenda?

[DiogenesLamp]

And William Lewis left us with no direct statement by which he indicates one way or the other which view of "natural born citizen" he favored. Again, I'll note what Prof. Ramsey says:

First of all, I do not give a sh*t what any modern day "scholar" thinks about something. If you want to prove something, quote it from the late 18th century or early 19th century, and do not waste my time with what modern fools think.

Second of all, William Lewis (US Attorney and Pennsylvania convention delegate) died in 1819. Robert's acquired his legal education solely from William Lewis, and Roberts prominently states that Vattel's principle of citizenship is the law in Pennsylvania. Were this statement by Robert's false, William Lewis, (his mentor) WM Tilghman, (Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, Maryland Constitutional Convention Delegate) Jasper Yeats, (Convention Delegate and Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice), Thomas Smith, (Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention Delegate and Supreme Court Justice) , & H.H. Brackenridge, (Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, Pennsylvania Convention Delegate) would have all said to him:

"You stupid twit! Don't you know that English Common law is the basis of citizenship? "

Right here is a point where you need to do some soul searching. Do you so badly want to believe something that you will insist on ignoring obvious facts?

There is no way in H3ll that Samuel Roberts could have published that book in 1808 Philadelphia and gotten away with saying Vattel is the basis of Citizenship in Pennsylvania, if it were not true.

No. Do the decent thing and simply admit that the book is genuine, it represents the conventional opinion of the Pennsylvania legal community of the time, and that these people ought to know what was the intent of the Constitution because they were all convention delegates to the Pennsylvania state ratification convention.

You are trying to hold back a tide of evidence with your arms, and it is simply impossible. No reasonable person will believe that Roberts could have gotten away with writing a prolifically utilized book with such a false statement on such a very significant point in the very first chapter.

Look at your argument with the light of truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

Yeah, it also uses the word "Citizen."

What you seemingly aren't able to grasp is that "Subject" would be used exclusively but for the intrusion of this new word "Citizen." The thing was written in 1776, just 11 days after the Declaration. That "Subject" continued to be use to lesser degrees with each passing year is attributable to verbal inertia, and nothing else.

By 1787, the custom of using the word "subject" had been mostly supplanted by the new term, except perhaps for occasional subsequent usage among the rubes from backwater places like Boston. :)

You aren't impressing anyone with your attempts to assert significant from trivial little nothing details, Captain Pouncetrifle.

[CpnHook]

In the same sentence. Gee. I wonder what they had in common?

Hmmm, gosh, could it be that Locke and Vattel both wrote on natural law and the essential dignity of man, that both wrote about the right to revolt when natural rights were denied, that both were writers whom Jefferson drew upon when writing the Declaration?

These are all true. Which means they put the lie to your previous claims "John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence" and "Indeed, the very ideas of "Revolution" and "Independence" comes from Vattel, and no one else." Your historical illiteracy was on full display there: Locke quite evidently wrote of the right of revolution, as James Otis (your source) notes.

And the Colonists were "subjects" reading Locke who wrote of the right of "subjects" to revolt. Somehow his relevance sails over your head. Was Jefferson's Declaration influenced by Locke? Indeed it was:

"Thomas Jefferson ranked Locke, along with Locke's compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty. Locke helped inspire Thomas Paine's radical ideas about revolution. Locke fired up George Mason. From Locke, James Madison drew his most fundamental principles of liberty and government. Locke's writings were part of Benjamin Franklin's self-education, and John Adams believed that both girls and boys should learn about Locke. The French philosopher Voltaire called Locke "the man of the greatest wisdom. What he has not seen clearly, I despair of ever seeing." . . . Locke's influence was most apparent in the Declaration of Independence, the constitutional separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights." Source

Here's from the folks at Monticello:

""I see my job as trying to bring together and harmonize a variety of different opinions," Jefferson wrote. "We are putting before all of mankind words that are both simple and firm, a justification for the stand that we're being forced to take."

Influences on Jefferson's Writing

Thomas Jefferson used no books or pamphlets to help him write the Declaration of Independence. But since his early days, he'd thought and read about government and the rights of mankind. He read British writer John Locke, who believed that people are born with natural rights. Governments should be for the benefit of everyone, not just the rulers. (These ideas were evident in Jefferson's ideas for Virginia's new state constitution.) Thomas Paine had also expressed a similar idea in Common Sense: "A government of our own is a natural right." Source

One more, just for fun and so I can laugh again when you purport to ignore it using your stupid evasion that Locke didn't use the term "citizen."

There has been considerable scholarly debate about how much Locke's political doctrines affected the American revolutionaries and the writing of the American declaration of independence. The original claim that Locke's thought had considerable influence on the colonists was challenged and has more recently been reaffirmed. Source

Speaking of "citizen," was that term so unique to Vattel insofar as writers influencing Jefferson that you establish your claim that "citizen" derives from Vattel? No, it wasn't.

Another strong influence on Jefferson was Jean Jacque Rousseau:

"If the American Revolution was due to the spirit of liberty inherent in the English people, the formulas in which the Declaration of Independence was couched were largely drawn from Rousseau. When its framers demanded "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for every citizen, they were speaking his language."Source

And Rousseau's "The Social Contract" is replete with discussions on that term "citoyen" that you think Jefferson could only have taken from Vattel.

You espouse a flawed theory based on selective sampling and tunnel vision by which you will only consider Vattel as the source.

Of course only one of them used the word "Citizen."

And when those Colonists reading Locke and Vattel were then subjects, why is that significant? Answer: it's not. It's just your self-serving dodge to try in vain to make Vattel some singular influence (a claim I've disproved above).

Demonstrated by the usage of the word "Citizen." Locke, and English common law both used the word "Subject."

And given many used "subject" and "citizen" interchangeably, so what? As far as the birthright issue goes, it is a distinction without a difference.

"Citizenship" comes from the Declaration of Independence.

That is the point of demarcation for viewing people as U.S. citizens. Though the concept of "citizenship" dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Rousseau wrote on it, and Rousseau strongly influenced Jefferson and the Declaration. So while you can demonstrate the Declaration marks the start of U.S. citizenship, you fail to demonstrate the concept of "citizen" in the Declaration derives from Vattel.

Ergo, Citizenship is the product of a document and philosophy based on Vattel.

This is pure hand-waving fallacy on your part. You don't demonstrate this. You merely declare it because this has become your point of last refuge.

A reminder here on the course of this discussion is in order. You first started with me trying to argue that Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with "natural born citizen." Then I disabused you of that ill-informed opinion, and you've abandoned it. Then you were all big on how Justice Gray misread the legislative history to the 14th Amendment. Then I disabused you of that ill-informed opinion, and you've since abandoned it. Then you fell back on the "it all started to go off-track with Rawle" argument. So I then showed how Story, Kent, Tucker, and Swift -- writing at the same time and even earlier than Rawle -- espoused the same jus soli principle, which puts the lie to your claim about Rawle. And along the way, I've been repeatedly hammering you on how the documented continued use of "natural born subject" and its interchangeable use with "NBC" in the post-Declaration period makes the ECL basis for "natural born citizen" in the Constitution self-evidenct (a fact reflected by the VAST majority of legal scholars and the courts since the Constitution was enacted).

Now, on this Constitutional issue, your main point has become the Declaration of Independence. And even here you can't prove your claim that "citizen" comes from Vattel, given that Jefferson acknowledges drawing upon multiple sources, and at least one highly influential source (Rousseau) also wrote of "citizens."

The title of Chapter 19 is "Des citoyens et naturels". "Natural Citizens." The "born" part is an English leftover,

And with that last remark you effectively concede the argument. Exactly!! Speaking of "natural born" citizens aligns the term with the common law. Had the Framers intended to match Vattel, it would have been a simple matter to write in Article II "born of citizen parents." (Vattel: "of parents who are citizens.") But they didn't. Instead, they framed this borrowing the nomenclature of English common law ("natural born" citizen).

The rest, as they say, is history. And your argument fails accordingly.

I always find it funny when people trot out the old "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" in support of their losing effort to convince.

Citing authorities who are recognized as being authoritative on the topic is both commonplace and proper. That's how "authorities" are recognized as such. They are influential and their works are cited. So we can observe Swift being cited. We observe Tucker, Kent, and Rawle being cited. We can observe Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke being cited.

But Samuel Roberts? LOL. I've never seen him cited till Ray76 pulled him out of obscurity here. It was only with difficulty I found a bio on Roberts when I looked him up. Your fallacious appeal to "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" is just your lame attempt to dodge the fact the vast amount of authority on this topic is arrayed against you.

[DiogenesLamp]

These are all true. Which means they put the lie to your previous claims "John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence"

Your link does not prove what it asserts.

Your historical illiteracy was on full display there: Locke quite evidently wrote of the right of revolution, as James Otis (your source) notes.

But as I repeatedly point out to you, the word "Citizen" does not seem to be present in his work. Ergo, he wasn't the source that created this effect.

One more, just for fun and so I can laugh again when you purport to ignore it using your stupid evasion that Locke didn't use the term "citizen."

It is not my evasion, it is yours. I am embracing the word "citizen", which as a matter of fact, is the concept around which the entire discussion revolves, isn't it?

You are the one trying to avoid the word that is at the center of the debate, and you are desperately hoping Locke will somehow save you from it. :)

Another strong influence on Jefferson was Jean Jacque Rousseau:

And what Authority on English common law was he? Are you making the argument that our usage of "citizen" intended to follow English Common law because Rousseau was a source of English common law?

a claim I've disproved above

No you haven't. You are just deluded that way. :)

Then you were all big on how Justice Gray misread the legislative history to the 14th Amendment. Then I disabused you of that ill-informed opinion, and you've since abandoned it.

No you haven't. You've pointed out that a couple of ignorant Senators and Reps had an ignorant view of things, but you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that Bingham followed your claims. My tagline is a partial quote of what Bingham said.

"Bingham" is one of those uncomfortable facts like "citizen", and so of course you just want to ignore him and declare yourself correct. :)

You also never seem to get around to answering the question of why we needed the 14th amendment anyway. If the existing law was jus soli, then why make a jus soli amendment? (Especially one that still didn't include Indians.) :)

Instead, they framed this borrowing the nomenclature of English common law ("natural born" citizen).

Except about that part where they added the word "citizen", which completely changes the nature of it.

We can observe Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke being cited.

Not going to wade through all your silly claims, but i'll knock this one off. Lynch v. Clarke was a STATE case, not a Federal case. It was shortly thereafter overturned by a State Statute that *DID* ban the children of transient aliens from being a citizen of New York.

The Legislature of New York did with premeditation, and Malice Aforethought, BITCHSLAP the ignorant judge that rendered the Lynch v Clarke decision.

And now you've been BITCHSLAPPED as well. :)

[CpnHook]

If you want to prove something, quote it from the late 18th century or early 19th century,

And when I do that with the likes of Swift, Kent, Tucker, Rawle, and Story, you ignore them. Rawle was appointed by George Washington. You find that same provenance significant with Lewis, but then pooh-pooh it with Rawle. Your inconsistency is amusing.

Were this statement by Robert's false, William Lewis, [they] would have all said to him: "You stupid twit! Don't you know that English Common law is the basis of citizenship? "

And this is the reasoning and argument I held up to you when you tried insinuating John Bingham was stating a rule on citizenship at odds with his "learned friend" James F. Wilson who was citing Blackstone and Wm. Rawle. Of course, you never attempted to explain that one. But you're learning from me how to make arguments from the historical evidenc. Good for you.

And as for my soul-searching, I've already covered this. The purpose of Roberts's book was to inform the Pennsylvania legislature on what English statutes remained in force in Pennsylvania. The status of those born here doesn't hinge on a statute, so that question is simply outside the stated scope of the work. So the comment on citizenship is, as attorneys and judges call it, "obiter dicta." As judges acknowledge, those portions of judicial opinions often aren't put together with the same thought and attention to detail as to the core parts. Did the other judges focus in on this issue? Possibly. Though maybe not. Did it matter for purposes of the project what rule they stated as to domestic birth? No, as that didn't impact the issue of which English statutes remain in effect.

Doe Roberts state the rule is one stemming from the Constitutional Convention? No. He doesn't state a source. He states (p. 26, fn 12) that the English rule and the perpetual allegiance he sees attached to that seem incompatible with notions of liberty).

The point remains that Roberts's work is the outlier view here. It seems not to have been cited or corroborated by anyone. Not even by those (e.g., C.J. Fuller) who are arguing for the Vattel rule. In the 39th Congress, there's a colloguy between Sen Trumbull and Sen. Cowan of Pennsylvania about how children born in Pennsylvania to all these German (non-naturalized) immigrants are unquestionably considered citizens. Cowan concurs. What Roberts states doesn't ever appear to have been applied as the rule in PA, at least not as to white persons. What you need to truly establish your point is an example of a white person, born here to alien parents, who was stated to be born an alien. In other words, you need a Julia Lynch in Pennsylvania, but with a different conclusions. And you don't have that.

that these people ought to know what was the intent of the Constitution because they were all convention delegates to the Pennsylvania state ratification convention.

In the absence of any evidence (and there is none) that the meaning of "natural born citizen" was discussed at all within the Convention, then there is no reason to presume they know better than anyone else. They each likely had a personal understanding. I think Franklin and Adams and the delegates who were aware how "subject" and "citizen" were used interchangeably had an understanding, too.

What we know for sure is the words they adopted. And for the reasons given in my prior post those words point us to the English common law, not Vattel.

You are trying to hold back a tide of evidence with your arms, and it is simply impossible.

Oh, I like the little rhetorical flourish here. The point is utter crap, but you word it nicely.

[Dstorm]

Understand they must parrot Trumps talking point like Winston Smith (1984) until he goes off in a different tangent

[CpnHook]

Your link does not prove what it asserts.

The first two links were to your prior posts, which shows I was quoting you verbatim. The other links in fact demonstrate it is recognized Locke influenced Jefferson's Declaration. As to Locke espousing the right of subjects to revolt, I've previous given that reference to his work.

But as I repeatedly point out to you, the word "Citizen" does not seem to be present in his work. Ergo, he wasn't the source that created this effect.

Locke wrote on the right of "subjects" to revolt when their natural rights were being wrongly denied and this was read by Colonists who were "subjects" and who (e.g., James Otis) credit Locke with inspiring the American Revolution. And you keep trying to claim he couldn't not have this "effect" because he didn't use the word "citizen."

You are truly hopeless. You have this backwards. Under your reasoning, Vattel couldn't have have influenced the Colonists towards revolution because they were subjects and Vattel was writing only about citizens. They would have gone "nah, Vattel doesn't speak to us, we're "subjects." Right?

I am embracing the word "citizen", which as a matter of fact, is the concept around which the entire discussion revolves, isn't it?

And I am embracing the historical fact that, for many, "subject" and "citizen" had an interchangeable usage. So that European writers used "citizen" whereas English writers used "subject" isn't a very significant distinction given that it's recognized that Jefferson (like many other Colonists) read and drew upon writer from both England and the Continent.

And what Authority on English common law was he? Are you making the argument that our usage of "citizen" intended to follow English Common law because Rousseau was a source of English common law?

Your straw man mischaracterizations get rather tedious.

Rousseau and Vattel were each European writers who influence Jefferson and whom Jefferson drew upon when writing the Declaration. Both used the term "citizen." Therefore, you can't blithely just waive your hand and proclaim that Jefferson's use of "citizen" stems from Vattel. And this is all the more true given that Jefferson stated that his Declaration was a synthesis of the thoughts of multiple writers.

No you haven't. You are just deluded that way.

I'm sure no amount of articles, no matter the level of scholarship will ever prove my point to you. Your mind is made up and you won't entertain counter-proof. Any article by a scholar written in the past 150 years you dismiss as being "modern." And a contemporary source (Otis) who give equal credit to Locke and Vattel (listing Locke first) you simply highlight the part about Vattel and ignore the equal credit he gives to Locke.

But, again, my puropse here is not to convince you; it suffices for me to show that your positions and arguments are objectively unreasonable.

You've pointed out that a couple of ignorant Senators and Reps had an ignorant view of things,

I quoted where Bingham termed Rep. Wilson his "learned friend" with whom he had frequent discussions on these topics. If you would give Wilson (whom you stupidly and dishonestly quoted to try to make him appear to support you) the credit Bingham gives him, perhaps you wouldn't remained mired in ignorance.

but you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that Bingham followed your claims.

No, ignorant one, I have done that repeatedly. You just ignore it. Here's the learned John Bingham:

"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)

That's the jus soli, English common law based rule of "natural born citizen," straight and clear out of the mouth of John Bingham.

Got it now?

Except about that part where they added the word "citizen", which completely changes the nature of it.

Changes? Says who? You? LOL. You need a better source than that.

Franklin and Adams wrote "natural born subject" into state constitutions. You can't dismiss this as some attempt to slowly "break in" the supposed radically different concept of "citizen." One might conceivably do that via pamphlets or every day discourse. But a state constitution that can only be changed via the amendment process or by outright abrogation and substitution? Nah, the "slowly adjusting" claim is silly.

The Legislature of New York did with premeditation, and Malice Aforethought, BITCHSLAP the ignorant judge that rendered the Lynch v Clarke decision.

That's debatable. That statute excludes "transient aliens." Julia Lynch's parents had been in New York for 4 years prior to her birth. Doubtful that's "transient." But, in any case, I've already dealt with this tired sawhorse of yours. In your legal ignorance you fail to recognize the distinction between the common law and statutory law.

Lynch v. Clarke was cited within the 39th Congress as exemplary of the "existing law" which that body stated it was merely affirming:

"This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Wilson's speech, March 1) and by the authorities he has cited. (1 Sharwood's Blackstone, 844; Naturalization Ac's Digest, 187; Section 10 of Act of September 4, 1841; Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 4.. 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title Denizen; 2 Kent. Comm., 278, note; . . Rawle on Constitution, 80; State ex Manuel, 3[.]

In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, "it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union" it was and is that "all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents." (1 Sandford's Ch. R., 483)

This was the common law of England, and this statute (25 Edward II, St. 2 [] ) was declaratory of the old common law." Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)

And the SCOTUS in WKA cites Lynch favorably 3 times for much the same proposition -- that all persons born in the U.S. were native citizens at birth had been recognized without controversy since the Constitution was enacted.

So, I asked you once before: given that Lynch is cited favorably within the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS as exemplary of the common law on "natural born citizen," why should anyone give a rat's a** what the NY legislature later did?

You didn't answer before. Perhaps this time you can get the hamsters turning the wheels in your head and muster a reply.

[Dstorm]

Did you read what you just posted? do you understand what the meaning of “one of the following certified documents mean” hint it doesn’t mean all

[bushpilot2]

[bushpilot2]

[bushpilot2]

You want to claim the mother but deny the father... Cuban constitution...

[bushpilot2]

Vattel citizenship

[Dstorm]

Your right I have learned from his posts, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with his POV, or others should.