Again, in the absence of your producing any evidence that the meaning of "natural born citizen" was discussed at all within the Convention (or the ratifying debates), being at the convention (or not) wouldn't affect a person's understanding of the term. So I consider your repeated "he wasn't at the convention" line to be meaningless and mere side-stepping to avoid the fact I've simply WAY more authorities to cite.
And as far as the historical record on this topic goes, that these attorneys served in that capacity doesn't seem to have mattered to or impressed anyone else.
Rawle was a British Trained lawyer who was surrounded by other lawyers who flat out told him his theories on citizenship were nonsense. (google "Rawle" with "revolutionary forceps.")
OK, I googled that, and it pulled up the case of M'Ilwaine v. Coxe, a citizenship case in which Rawle won.
You are once again refuted by the very authorities you cite. Amusing, that is.
You don't learn what was the intent of congress by being attorney general, you do it by being privy to the deliberations occurring in the legislative bodies that are enacting the law.
Again, your method here is to assume there were deliberations on the term "natural born citizen" and that persons who attended the Convention or ratifying conventions thus can be considered to hold a superior understanding of the "original intent." Again the rule is "Your claim, your proof." We have a record of controversy and discussion over many topics. But the record is devoid of any suggestion that "NBC" was discussed in the least. Mere presence in Philadelphia in 1787 doesn't result in some superior understanding about a concept that wasn't discussed.
John Bingham states the Parent rule twice.
But he doesn't say the parents must be citizens. You are reading that into his words to force-fit him into your Vattel paradigm.
That it sat in Pennsylvania and other Law Libraries for over half a century (it was republished again in the 1847) demonstrates that this was the accepted position of the Pennsylvania legal system during this time period.
Though you still lack an example of a (white) person born in PA to alien parents who was described as an alien. The book appears to have sat on the shelf with no one actually applying the supposed rule.
Rawle polluted the water, and foolish people drank of it.
Your question-begging methodology persists unabated.
You have yet to establish that before Rawle there was any clear-water consensus that the rule was other than he states. I've demonstrated much evidence to the contrary -- how Adams and Franklin retained the English common law terminology ("natural born subject") in their respective state constitutions, how Swift, Tucker, and Kent (writing prior to Rawle) espoused the same view. Zoltan has added another with Rep. Hillhouse:
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046.
Do tell. Where's the hue and cry from the Pennsylvania delegation (or anyone else) that such is NOT our law? That Congress in 1795 was comprised of many who were at Philadelphia in 1787 and/or on their respective state ratifying bodies. Consider the words spoken:
"Were this statement by [Hillhouse] false [they] would have all said to him: "You stupid twit! Don't you know that [Emmerich de Vattel] is the basis of citizenship?"
Are you here going to disavow your own argument and dive ever deeper into your muck of inconsistency?
The point you are refusing to address is that such an act is impossible without the tacit approval of William Lewis and these Judges of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania.
I accept that is a possibility. Though I think it also possible they accepted the point was outside the scope of the project, that Roberts in that footnote was largely offering his opinion, and that given they acknowledge up front that the work doesn't carry the weight of judicial precedent, that it wasn't a point that warranted editing.
The children of non-naturalized German immigrants in Pennsylvania were later recognized seemingly without question to be natural born citizens. So either the supposed Vattel rule was never applied or it mysteriously changed (how?). Holes in your theory abound.
You cannot spin this, and it is a testament to your childishness that you insist on trying.
It really burns you, doesn't it, every time I take one of your sacred cows and skewer it? This is but another example.
Lynch states what the common law on citizenship was. The 39th Congress was tasked with taking the existing law (the common law) and giving force and equal protection effect to that, which the Congress did via the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment. And Lynch was held up within the Congress as being exemplary of the common law rule prevailing in the United States. The SCOTUS in WKA viewed the case the same way.
Your hallowed piece of later NY legislation is IRRELEVANT when the question is "what is the common law rule in the U.S.?" Statutory law is NOT common law (which is judge-made law or case law). Your ignorance here is at the most fundamental level of legal knowledge.
It is the same standard that applies to every constitutional issue. The notion that Congress didn't have any idea what they were doing when they did it is idiocy.
No evidence is necessary to establish self-evident truths.
So I consider your repeated "he wasn't at the convention" line to be meaningless and mere side-stepping to avoid the fact I've simply WAY more authorities to cite.
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.
You disdain the delegate requirement because *YOU* haven't got any.
And as far as the historical record on this topic goes, that these attorneys served in that capacity doesn't seem to have mattered to or impressed anyone else.
It is not my responsibility to hold the hand of lesser minds who do not know what they are doing. The fault lies with them.
OK, I googled that, and it pulled up the case of M'Ilwaine v. Coxe, a citizenship case in which Rawle won.
Well then you missed the reference. Pity you can't seem to do anything right.
Again, your method here is to assume there were deliberations on the term "natural born citizen" and that persons who attended the Convention or ratifying conventions thus can be considered to hold a superior understanding of the "original intent."
Wow genius. You eventually catch on to the obvious. Yeah. The law means what the legislators understand it to mean when they create it. One would not think this would be an issue subject to debate, but then one does not normally spend much time arguing with a f***ing idiot.
But the record is devoid of any suggestion that "NBC" was discussed in the least.
The absence of a record does not establish a record of absence. You are attempting to prove a negative. If it was not discussed, then that is because everyone was already in a semblance of agreement as to what it meant.
I'm fine with defaulting back to the 1776 meaning. By 1787, it was no longer a topic worthy of discussion, so they didn't.
But he doesn't say the parents must be citizens. You are reading that into his words to force-fit him into your Vattel paradigm.
It says they can't owe any allegiance to any other sovereignty. If you are not a slave or an Indian, that would be a pretty good trick.
What sort of person might this be that has parents that aren't citizens of anywhere? Don't bother . I know you can't answer that question. You are just merely pushing more chaff out of your stricken argument.
Though you still lack an example of a (white) person born in PA to alien parents who was described as an alien. The book appears to have sat on the shelf with no one actually applying the supposed rule.
There you go with that trying to prove a negative again. There may very well be such an example in history, but that such has not yet been brought forward is not proof that it doesn't exist. This is why you do so badly in these discussions. You do not have a logical mind. You quickly flit from one non-sequitur to another, and aren't even cognizant of the logical fallacy argument you are attempting to advance.
You have yet to establish that before Rawle there was any clear-water consensus that the rule was other than he states.
You mean other than the fact that his Co-Counsel, Four State delegates and Supreme Court justices, as well as Bushrod Washington and John Marshall disagreed with his position? Other than that?
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. Kinda like you.
In one of his freedom cases argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court unanimously rejected his argument that a slave was a citizen because she was born here. It doesn't get much more rebuked than a unanimous decision against you.
I've demonstrated much evidence to the contrary -- how Adams and Franklin retained the English common law terminology ("natural born subject") in their respective state constitutions,
But stipulated that the Sons of freeholders may vote. (Freeholder is by far the most used term, but Citizen is in there also.) The Voting franchise is pretty much exclusive to citizens.
Zoltan has added another with Rep. Hillhouse:
Who is also not a delegate to either the US Constitutional convention, or the Connecticut Ratification convention. Nor was he a member of the Continental Congress in 1776.
And What claim to expertise has he?
Do tell. Where's the hue and cry from the Pennsylvania delegation (or anyone else) that such is NOT our law?
I think the evidence for their hue and cry is the fact that his proposal did not become law. :)
"Were this statement by [Hillhouse] false [they] would have all said to him: "You stupid twit! Don't you know that [Emmerich de Vattel] is the basis of citizenship?"
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.
I accept that is a possibility.
It is a foregone conclusion. Judges are not noted for their Humor regarding points of law with which they disagree.
The children of non-naturalized German immigrants in Pennsylvania were later recognized seemingly without question to be natural born citizens.
Running for President, were they? Yeah, that's all the time i'm going to spend on that assertion.
It really burns you, doesn't it, every time I take one of your sacred cows and skewer it?
I couldn't say. I have yet to see you accomplish it. But if you mean your tendency to lie about the truth, yeah, that gets pretty tiresome.
Lynch states what the common law on citizenship was.
No one needed a ruling in the Lynch case to know what English Common law said. The fallacy of Lynch was in assuming that it must apply because New York did not stipulate otherwise. Of course, New York later corrected that oversight.
The 39th Congress was tasked with taking the existing law (the common law) and giving force and equal protection effect to that, which the Congress did via the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment.
And here you are still trying to move the discussion up 90 years later to when many people had forgotten what they used to know.
Even then, Bingham gets it right by clarifying that these legislative acts are only intended to apply to people who had no allegiance to anyone else.
Your hallowed piece of later NY legislation is IRRELEVANT when the question is "what is the common law rule in the U.S.?
Not at all. It demonstrates that your English Common Law rule was not inviolable. That a system which excluded the children of Transient Aliens was preferred to one which creates "anchor babies."
They were right. Had the nation insisted on this common sense rule, we would not have an ignorant, lazy, incompetent piece of sh*t like Obama as President.
A man who's only qualification for office is his color.
Statutory law is NOT common law (which is judge-made law or case law). Your ignorance here is at the most fundamental level of legal knowledge.
Not ignorance. Better understanding coupled with willful disobedience. No. Judges do not MAKE law. Judges that attempt to make law should be hanged. I understand your assertion just fine. I just disagree with it. It is contrary to reason and natural law, and the fact that it is commonly practiced does not legitimize it.
As for the Common law, let me have Madison explain it to your childish little authoritarian-@$$-licking pea brain.
Read the whole D@mned thing, and try to grasp some rationality for a change.