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

"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived [i.e., England]" On the Carriage Tax, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8.

Nothing wrong with that where appropriate, but in areas where English law is in conflict with American legal principles, English law must be tossed out.

You appear to be a bit slow. This is exactly what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was tasked with doing by the Legislature in 1808. Toss out English Law junk that is incompatible with American Principles.

Note they did not toss out all of it. Just those parts of it that were incompatible with the new form of government. You know, like the status of "subject."

Pray tell, how is this a "rebuke" of English law?

You constantly do this "bait and switch" thing. You take a general statement, and you attempt to use it to ignore exceptions. You do this with Bingham as well. He clarified his position on children born to those of foreign allegiance, but you go find examples where he doesn't expound on that detail and you then try to apply them as the rule for his position on the matter. I do not believe this is a form of ignorance, I believe it is an effort to deliberately deceive people about what is the correct understanding of his position. You are attempting to do the same thing here with your English Law argument.

Yes, in general, English Law applies for the vast majority of mundane civil and criminal issues, but for this specific thing regarding the nature of the relationship between individual and state, it does not apply.

The "rebuke" to English law is the deliberately throwing off the required "perpetual allegiance". By asserting a right to be free of "perpetual allegiance", you have effectively rebuked the premise upon which such a law is founded; That the King rules by divine right and those born on his land are his rightful servants.

The notion that Congress didn't have any idea what they were doing when they did it is idiocy.

That's not my notion. It's just more of your straw.

I think each attendee at the Convention and ratifying debates had a sense of what "natural born citizen" meant to him. And I think that the vast majority, insofar as they gave much thought to it, understood the term in accordance with Blackstone and the familiar term "natural born subject." One must consider how steeped in ECL terminology and jurisprudence many of the attendees were:

""Blackstone's Commentaries had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature. It is safe to say that it contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791. Sunray Oil Corp. v. Allbritton, 187 F.2d 475,478 (Holmes, dissenting) (5th Cir. 1951)

As I've pointed out, the term "natural born" was prior to the Convention a term in English usage associated solely with England and the common law. You make much of the use of "citizen," but it is pure presumption that such changed the legal rule in their minds, given that France at that time operated under a similar jus soli view.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil; and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality." Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, Â§ 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) Â§ 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall's International Law, (4th ed.) Â§ 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666 (1898).

Your pretensions notwithstanding, use of the term "citizen" doesn't lead inexorably to Vattel.

No evidence is necessary to establish self-evident truths.

This doesn't even rise to the level of a hand-wave.

"It is axiomatic" has long been your code words for "I don't have any evidence, so I'll just declare that what I say is true."

You fail to grasp the fundamentals of debate and proof.

They aren't "authorities" if they do not know what the F*** they are talking about. They are false authorities, and that's pretty much all you have.

Whine. Protest. Whine.

Again, your standard by which to gauge whether these people "know what they are talking about" is you. Pure subjectivity. Though in the objective, reality-based world of history and legal scholarship, these authorities are recognized as being credible sources. I know it's frustrating for you that the people you keep trying to hold up don't carry that same status.

You eventually catch on to the obvious.

Right, like making the point that being in attendance may grant them a superior understanding of the collective view within the Convention, if there is evidence the matter was at all discussed. But you lack that evidence, which means that attendance is an irrelevant factor.

Your claim; your proof. You fail here again. You don't grasp the obvious.

The absence of a record does not establish a record of absence. You are attempting to prove a negative.

I don't need to prove a negative (nor can that be done). Logically, the burden of proof rests with the claimant (Your claim, your proof). Your claim is that a book published in 1817 must be taken as high proof of what "natural born citizen" meant because some persons associated with that work were delegates either at the Constitutional Convention or a later state ratifying convention. And that might be true if in fact there was discussion and debate about that term at those conventions. You can't just presume that.

An absence of a record does tend to prove a record of absence, given that Madison took copious notes of the Convention proceedings and given that there is a record of MUCH discussion and debate on other issues.

As it's often said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Your claim (that near the entire legal community writing on this topic after 1787 was in error) is extraordinary. So you need really solid proof that such was the case.

But you don't have that. You don't even have what might be called a prima facie case based on slight evidence." You have merely a lot of hand-waving and assumption, coupled with a self-inflated pomposity that you somehow know better than the near entire historical and legal community of the past 230 years.

I'm fine with defaulting back to the 1776 meaning.

Which was what? Where's your demonstration of how Jefferson used or defined "citizen" in the Declaration and how that aligns with Vattel's definition? This is what would prove your clam that "citizen" came from Vattel and not some other source (e.g., Rousseau or the nation of France or the simple connection between "citizen" and "republic" dating back to ancient Greece).

Where's your proof? All we see here from you is hand-waving and bluster.

It says they can't owe any allegiance to any other sovereignty.

Right. Just as a few months earlier the Congress had debated the Civil Rights Act, which said in pertinent part:

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States[.]"

Given that Bingham states that the 14th Amendment, like the Civil Rights Act before it, was merely declaratory of the existing law, it should be clear to any thinking person that Bingham's "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty" means the same thing as "not subject to any foreign power [and] excluding Indians."

And we know from the earlier debates what the words "not subject to any foreign power" meant. Did that mean all foreign nationals residing in the U.S. No! It meant a particular class of foreign persons, namely, diplomats and their children. The exception to birth citizenship found in the existing common law.

Given that the 14th Amendment was quite consciously done to elevate the rule of the CRA to Constitutional status,, there is no basis upon which to claim "not owing allegiance to any foreign power" had a meaning in Bingham's mind distinct from the Civil Rights Act. And his later remarks ("all persons born in the Republic are natural born citizens") slams this point home.

You mean other than the fact that his Co-Counsel, Four State delegates and Supreme Court justices,

No, here I mean outside this little pocket of lawyers associated with Samuel Roberts largely obscure work. I mean other places, like Connecticut (where Swift and Hillhouse take a different view) or Masschussetts (whose assembly had been using "NBS" and "NBC" interchangeably) or Virginia (where the citizenship statute drafted by Jefferson adopted a jus soli principle (the statute St. George Tucker says is "accordant" with the ECL principle and Blackstone)?

I'm not seeing waters of such purity that you can state Rawle somehow polluted them and do so with a straight face.

And neither Bushrod Washington nor John Marshall state what you claim: neither purports to apply Vattel as the rule on birth citizenship in the U.S. You simply persist in that disingenuous claim.

They may very well have privately chastised him, but this is not likely to be so public as would the chastisement from publishing a book with other distinguished Judges names in it and asserting the law of their state stems from Vattel.

Oh, right, I'm forgetting your "a rule or presumptions is applied, or not applied, depending on whether in the moment if favors me or not" technique.

Judges are not noted for their Humor regarding points of law with which they disagree.

Says the man who has never presented a case before one.

That may be true in an actual case where the judge has to issue a ruling having a real effect. But in a book where the point of law isn't even relevant to the statutory inquiry coming from the legislature? Probably less so.

Well rational people consider that pretty good evidence that he was repeatedly informed as to what was correct, and deliberately chose to ignore it, and state his own opinion in it's place.

Like who? Do you have any historical evidence Rawle was "repeatedly informed" of this? You keep making these claims about that period for which you repeatedly come up empty on proof. Or here are you going to repair to your lame "I had the links somewhere, but . . but. . now I just can't find them" excuse?

It demonstrates that your English Common Law rule was not inviolable.

Is has always been understood that the common law can be restated, modified or abrogated by statute. So you're making a non-point here. But of course Chancellor Sandford applied the ECL rule, because NY had a Reception Statute. And there was obviously no evidence that Vattel had ever been recognized as the rule in NY, either at the state or national level. Mr. Clarke cited the law of nations and lost the argument. The U.S. Government cited Vattel in WK and lost.

There has never been a period in our nation's history where there has been any general recognition that Vattel or the law of nations underpins the meaning of "natural born citizen." Your position is grounded on supposition.

As for the Common law, let me have Madison explain it to your childish little authoritarian-@$$-licking pea brain.

I've already explained (twice, I believe) this excerpt to you. I see no reason to try a third time to educate a demonstrated legal incompetent on the same point.

Nothing wrong with that where appropriate, but in areas where English law is in conflict with American legal principles, English law must be tossed out.

Exactly. And so it was that the Framers retained the term "natural born" from the ECL to signify the jus soli birth rule that still applied, while over time (when the issue arose) rejecting the notion of "perpetual allegiance" associated with English notions of subjecthood.

The Founder and Framers sampled and adopted ideas from a source, incorporating some things while excluding others. They incorporated much of the common law, retaining the terminology, legal concepts and jurisprudence, while obviously dispensing with things pertaining to the Crown and other unique facets of England. Jefferson sampled a host of writers and created his own synthesis of their thoughts to the extent it's not possible to attribute concepts like "citizen" or "natural rights" a single source. You persist in this fallacious thinking that concepts come in discrete, indissoluble packages. That's not how it worked.

He clarified his position on children born to those of foreign allegiance

Right, it was made clear both in the debates on the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment that foreign diplomats and their children were excluded from the rule.

What NO ONE in the Congress stated was that other foreign nationals coming to the U.S. had to be naturalized in order to for their children to be citizens at birth. In fact, the opposite was repeatedly affirmed. For example, Lyman Trumbull, author of the citizenship clause of the CRA:

"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

Bingham wasn't even the draftsman of the statutory provisions at issue. You cling to him out of desperation because you've found two comments you can take out of context and pretend to have a supporter.

I believe it is an effort to deliberately deceive people about what is the correct understanding of his position.

It's an effort to show how the statement of his upon which you place such reliance is ambiguous and how his statement can be readily understood in a way that harmonizes his view with those of Trumbull, Howard, Wilson, Lawrence (and others with whom I've not even bothered to cite) -- who all espouse the same common-law based view of what the "existing law" was that they explicitly stated they were adopting.

If that wasn't the "existing law" they repeatedly stated they were merely declaring, then what other law was that? Within the 39th Congress, Blackstone is cited, Rawle is cited, Lynch v. Clarke is cited, State v. Manuel (NC) is cited. And these sources all affirm the same viewpoint.

It's fatuous to posit that Bingham was understood to be declaring some other rule and neither he nor anyone else suggested in the least there was a difference in viewpoints. In that sort of debate, at a minimum a polite "with all due respect to the esteemed Congressman from ______" type rebuttal is both commonplace and to be expected. They can't be understood to be all agreeing "this provision is but declaratory of what the law now is" while in the next breath openly stating differing understandings of that law, while then offering no discussion on the stark differences.

The "rebuke" to English law is the deliberately throwing off the required "perpetual allegiance".

Though perpetual allegiance remained a topic of controversy well into the 19th century. By the time that was resolved in the negative, the jus soli birth citizenship rule held widespread, positive support. Again, your fallacy is in acting like these issues were inextricably joined at the hip when there is little evidence they were treated that way. Citizenship cases (e.g., Inglis) were analyzed without any felt need to then bring up whether this entailed perpetual allegiance. Perpetual allegiance was discussed without anyone then having to go back and revisit the established birth-citizenship rule.

I wasn't claiming "citizen" came from Locke. I don't need to.

Uh, yes you do. Since the entire discussion revolves around the origin of American usage of that word, you do have to link it to Locke to make Locke relevant to the discussion.

On the use of "citizen," Vattel wasn't some unique source or inspiration (Rousseau, who was also highly influential on Jefferson's Declaration) wrote of citizenship.

Rousseau was from Geneva. He was also Swiss. Your example is knocking holes in the bottom of your argument. You need to start bailing water. :)

but in drafting the Constitution we employed the English common law term "natural born" and applied it to "citizen," thus signifying that the English birth-rule which had to that point applied to "subjects" now applied equally to those we call "citizens."

And that is a non-sequitur. Had the intention been to apply the English birth-rule, there would have been no need to change terminology. The word "Subject" works just fine, it is well known by all parties, and people had been using it all their lives.

No, they deliberately chose to use the word "citizen" in an effort to establish that the nature of the relationship between individual and state had changed from that of "servant" to that of a free man. Usage of the word "citizen" was a deliberate rejection of the feudal based claim on their servitude implied by the term "subject."

Yes. Rousseau saw the citizen as a member of the political community, which conferred a legal status entitling such to civil rights and attendant benefits and obligations.

That is dodging my question. The question was whether Rousseau defined the term. But since I see that he was Swiss, I no longer have any concerns regarding how he might have defined the term. I am confident he regarded it to be the same as did Vattel. No doubt they were bumping into each other around Neuchatel.

You need to show where Jefferson defines "citizen" in the Declaration and then show how that so uniquely matches Vattel that one can say the one derives from the other.

No I don't. I only have to show that the origin of Jefferson's usage of the word defines it, and I believe I have done that quite effectively. Jefferson's source for the usage appears to be from writers in the Swiss Confederacy. The only Republic in the world at that time. :)

Oh, gosh, here I thought all these years 1764 and 1765 were significant because that's when England imposed the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, thereby pinching the Colonists' pocketbooks and starting that whole "no taxation without representation" thing. It was because Vattel's book was published? Whoodda thunk it?

The Monarchy had imposed harsh measures on their subjects in times past. The contemplation of independence was something new.

Wilson was the guy YOU once cited, dishonestly truncating his remarks to make him sound like he held to your view.

Speaking about someone dishonestly citing something, you do that quite a lot with this assertion. I cited Wilson from websites where he is cited in support of that claim. I admitted that I did not look his words up in the Congressional Globe, but merely relied instead on work that others had done without checking.

You keep bringing it up as if there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, (as if anyone could with a public record) instead of just laziness in checking primary sources. As I told you at the time, I'm not really putting out much effort in responding to you. The real battles on this subject were years ago, and you missed them. I don't really consider you to be a worthwhile opponent, and I no longer consider the issue very much worth discussing. It has pretty much lost any relevance to the real world at this point because the idiots have spoken.

It is now just an academic discussion and an occasional pastime as far as i'm concerned. But if there is anyone in this discussion being deliberately deceitful it is you and your dishonest characterization of what happened regarding James Wilson in this past discussion. I gave you Wilson a long time ago, yet you still attempt to hang on to Bingham even though you honestly can't.

You should stop being dishonest about this, and a number of other things as well.

"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)

And here is that example of you once again trying to use a general statement to ignore specific and articulated exceptions. Once again, I point out to you that Bingham had previously expounded on his specific understanding regarding that general statement. (1862)

All other persons born withing the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

And he did it again:(1866)

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

And he did it again:(1872)

That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.

Oh, oh, oh, this is "fall out of my chair with laughter" time.

Perhaps you should see a doctor. Sounds like you are about to have a psychotic break.

Do you need for me to explain Bingham to you again?

You'll have to do it the first time before you can do it again. I'm not going to hold my breath.

After your Bingham nonsense, i'm not going to read or respond to the rest of your little psycho party.

You are getting your @$$ whipped like a red headed step child. :)

Within the 39th Congress the indigenous tribes and their offspring were treated differently from immigrant aliens. And the SCOTUS in WKA observes likewise that the Indian tribes presented a special case unknown to the common law.

Slaves were also unknown to the common law. Neither did they inherit through Vattel's natural law. That is why they weren't citizens, and that is why there had to be an amendment passed to make them into citizens.

But Rawle was arguing that the Common Law applied to Slaves back in the 1790s. He lost all those cases. Every one of them.

So what are we to make of a "common law" with several millions of exceptions?

I will point out that the Vattel definition doesn't have millions of exceptions. Using it, Slaves and Indians fall outside the category called "citizen" because they have no national character to inherit from their fathers.

Also, the Children of British subjects born in America after 1776 were another large group of exceptions. (I've seen varying estimates between 15,000 and 100,000) They retained their Allegiance to England, rather than being forced into US Allegiance because they were born on US Land.

Your theory would force them into US Allegiance against the wishes of their parents. It certainly worked that way in England. Now tell me again how we followed the English Law rule?

I think each attendee at the Convention and ratifying debates had a sense of what "natural born citizen" meant to him.

That is actually a reasonable assertion. It is possible that some people believed the intent was to follow the Common Law rule, and others believed the intent was to follow the Natural Law rule of Vattel. The possibility exists that they all thought everyone else believed as did they, and so therefore the matter did not need to be discussed.

But it cannot be reasonably argued that many delegates did not follow the Natural Law rule. We have too many examples of people (such as Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong, Marshall, etc) who clearly followed the Vattel rule.

As I've pointed out, the term "natural born" was prior to the Convention a term in English usage associated solely with England and the common law.

And as I've pointed out, the two words "natural born" are adjective modifiers of the noun "citizen" which does not appear to be defined in any English Law books that I have seen from the era, and indeed appears to come from Natural law as informed by Swiss Republic philosophers.

The noun determines the meaning, not the adjectives. Didn't you learn basic English? Perhaps you need to quit worrying about English Law and get yourself a refresher course on English Grammar.

Your pretensions notwithstanding, use of the term "citizen" doesn't lead inexorably to Vattel.

You have certainly not demonstrated that it leads anywhere else, and certainly not back to English Common law. I can't find it in any of those old English Law books, remember?

Your two examples of it being used by Natural Law philosophers are both Swiss. :)

After looking ahead to your next bit of bitchiness, I think i'll just pass. Slapping your childish pansy ass is fun for awhile, but now it's starting to get boring again.

Since the entire discussion revolves around the origin of American usage of that word, you do have to link it to Locke to make Locke relevant to the discussion.

Attempts to deflect your earlier historical illiteracy will not be permitted. "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." Those are your statements. And they are flat-out WRONG.

Rousseau was from Geneva. He was also Swiss.

He also lived much of his adult years in France and for periods held French citizenship.

And I noted you omitted addressing this part of my post:

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil; and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality." Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, Ã‚Â§ 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) Ã‚Â§ 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall's International Law, (4th ed.) Ã‚Â§ 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666 (1898).

The term "citizen" doesn't lead inexorably to Vattel. You can't prelude that Jefferson (who knew of France apart from sampling European writers) didn't simply take "citizen" as a concept reflecting Rousseau or any of a host of other sources.

Your hand-waving on this point is so frantic one might think you imagine your argument will take flight. It won't. Do-do birds can't fly. Your argument was extinct long before 2009 when it suddenly was resurrected.

Had the intention been to apply the English birth-rule, there would have been no need to change terminology.

Was there an absolute need? No. This is a stylistic preference, the term "citizen" simply being more fitting to a republican form of government, though "subject" and "inhabitant" convey that same idea. As Justice Waite (a source you've cited) states "When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.")

You keep trying to make it mean something more, when it does not -- when clearly the historical record shows many considered "subject" and "citizen" interchangeable.

That is dodging my question. The question was whether Rousseau defined the term.

Oh, mine was not the dodge. The dodge here is your continued inability to demonstrate how Jefferson defined "citizen" as used in the Declaration and how the meaning ascribed can ONLY find its source in Vattel.

Because without that, DumbDumb, you've got nothing. Your entire argument based on "citizen" hinges on that proof. So far, you're failing miserably.

I am confident he regarded it to be the same as did Vattel.

Wave those hands! Keep waving them!!! Simply disregard the possibility that Rousseau understood "citizen" in the French sense (a place where he lived and was highly influential). Because, obviously, to entertain that thought in the least causes your entire argument to crumble.

I only have to show that the origin of Jefferson's usage of the word defines it, and I believe I have done that quite effectively.

You are such a fool. You haven't done that AT ALL! All you've done is wave your hands and declare it to be so.

Jefferson's source for the usage appears to be from writers in the Swiss Confederacy.

So you simply do another hand-wave and assume that everyone born within the Swiss Confederacy held to the same view on citizenship? Did Samuel Roberts and William Rawle espouse the same view because they were each American writers?

Your superficial analysis is so laughable because of how at the same time you pretend to be so smart. But, again, you illustrate your technique of "every assumption must be applied (or not) in the particular instance so as to benefit my argument."

So I ask again (because it's so fun watching you try to avoid this). Is it POSSIBLE that Rousseau understood "citizen" in the sense the French at this time did (which then would align Jefferson's usage both with England and France? Or is it POSSIBLE that Jefferson simply took "citizen" in long-standing sense to describe a member of a republic, independent of any later and particular usage associated with Vattel?

I'm poking holes again and again in your boat. Got a nice bucket? "Avoidance" isn't a patch.

I cited Wilson from websites where he is cited in support of that claim. I admitted that I did not look his words up in the Congressional Globe, but merely relied instead on work that others had done without checking.

Ah, so FINALLY, after a year or more of playing dumb, you admit to the truth: you're lazy and simply pawned off some other lazy or dishonest person.

I will thus from now exempt you from charges of "deliberate dishonesty" on this point and instead modify the indictment to read only "intellectually lazy." And the pattern of your citing to sources that don't back up your claims will continue to be held against you. :)

And if you had set out to diligently sample the entirety of statements from the 39th Congress, rather than again simply rely on some website touting your favorite two quotes from Bingham, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) be having discussion on him any further. As I say, pet arguments are clung to long after the time they should have been euthanized.

You keep bringing it up as if there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, (as if anyone could with a public record) instead of just laziness in checking primary sources.

That's because you never admitted to simply being lazy. So you left the door open for me to keep flogging you in the more severe sense. Before the Wilson example, you already had a history of not understanding your own sources.

Every attorney knows to read a case before citing it and not simply rely on someone else's summary of that case. You lack the training and intellectual rigor to truly understand your sources and your arguments. That's why I habitually eat you for lunch in these discussions.

Once again, I point out to you that Bingham had previously expounded on his specific understanding regarding that general statement.

So Bingham is consistent in using that same phrasing. So what? You have yet to demonstrate that he means that other than to exclude children of foreign diplomats (i.e., the familiar common law exception he'd get from reading Blackstone, Kent, Rawle, Lynch, etc.) or children born to Indians still holding tribal allegiance, i.e., the prevailing understanding among his Congressional colleagues. His later statement ("all persons born within the Republic are natural born citizens") is simply a statement of the common law rule, just without bothering to add "oh, plus we all know there are these exceptions").

Attempts to deflect your earlier historical illiteracy will not be permitted.

F*** you bitch.

But it cannot be reasonably argued that many delegates did not follow the Natural Law rule. We have too many examples of people (such as Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong, Marshall, etc) who clearly followed the Vattel rule.

Prof. Ramsey states it correctly, as these discussions here have amply born out:

Vattel might be thought to have a closer connection to the eligibility clause's text and context. . . . . The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. 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 - â€œ as clear as we can be about these matters - that no widespread public connection was drawn.

Yes, some may have held to more not-English viewpoint. But insofar as they did, they didn't make that clear of record. And those that are on record appear by the far greater weight of evidence to have favored the English view.

It can reasonably argued that neither Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong nor Marshall) support your view. The ONLY clear source you have is the obscure Samuel Roberts. The rest of these are simply your naked assertion they support you. But you fail to demonstrate that any of them asserted "citizen father" was prerequisite for a child born here to be a citizen at birth.

The noun determines the meaning, not the adjectives.

The adjective in this case ("natural born") signifies the source and rule by which that noun "citizen" occurs. Again, you're back to your same "joined at the hip" fallacy of acting like they simply couldn't take the English common law rule they knew and apply it using a term more fitting to members of republican government. But they could. And that's what they did.

You have certainly not demonstrated that it leads anywhere else, and certainly not back to English Common law.

It's not my burden of proof. It's yours. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that EVERYONE has missed the point that Jefferson's use of "citizen" in the Declaration was taken directly from Vattel. My contention is that Jefferson drew upon multiple sources, and so given attribution to a single source without compelling evidence is futile.

To make that demonstration, YOU would need to show 1) how Jefferson defined "citizen" in the Declaration and 2) that defined as such it matches Vattel sufficiently distinctly to mark Vattel as the origin. You haven't even attempted. You just claim Vattel was "influential." Big deal. So were many other sources.

and indeed appears to come from Natural law as informed by Swiss Republic philosophers.

And it just COULDN'T be that "citizen" comes simply from Jefferson's knowledge of France or his reading of works of classical antiquity. Jefferson's Reading List. Your argument is pure stupidity born of a tunnel vision approach that sees Jefferson as having read Vattel and little else.

Slaves were also unknown to the common law. Neither did they inherit through Vattel's natural law. That is why they weren't citizens, and that is why there had to be an amendment passed to make them into citizens.

This is unmitigated specious crap.

Slaves weren't denied recognition as citizens because of Vattel. It was because of racism that denied them the same rights as white persons. That's why there was a Civil War. Only after that war was it possible to enact an Amendment granting equal protection of the laws to blacks and others.

Again, if you want to demonstrate that the rule of law operated under a Vattel principle, then show a WHITE person who was born here to an alien father who was described or held to be still an alien at birth. Your appeal to slave cases proves only there was racism. Duh, no kidding.

But Rawle was arguing that the Common Law applied to Slaves back in the 1790s. He lost all those cases. Every one of them.

That's not true. He won a case concerning the children of a negro slave named "Letty" who were born in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania had a statute on slavery in effect in 1780. I've previously asked you for citation to the supposed "case" where Rawle based his argument on the common law and lost. You've been devoid of proof. Methinks this is another instance (like with James F. Wilson) where you were reading on some Birther website and came to the wrong conclusion).

So what are we to make of a "common law" with several millions of exceptions?

We make the same as we make of a Declaration of Independence stating that "all men are created equal" and "endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," that then denied that equality and that liberty to those same millions.

F*** you bitch.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the squeal of a pig who has had his argument skewered on every level and on every point.

Till next time, DumbDumb.

Once again, F*** you bitch. You are a childish little sh*t who has yet to make a valid point, but that doesn't stop you from crowing.

You are a legend in your own mind, but a nothing in real life.

You may not have anything better to do than denying reality and splitting nonsensical hairs, but I do. When you cease being amusing, I have no further interest in you, and the joke that your arguments represent has gotten old.

You have been handed your @$$, and so now you can run along like a good little boy and stop annoying people with your childish babbling.

Nobody really cares what you think.

Once again, F*** you bitch. You are a childish little sh*t who has yet to make a valid point

Saying this as you throw a tantrum is really, really funny.

Nobody really cares what you think.

I see no signs here that anyone cares what you think. No one supports you when you start spouting your crap.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like.