|
> That failed bill included everything except the > Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen. Yep. Yet strangely, WONG KIM ARK's discussion
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. AS SUCH, where the Wong Kim Ark Opinion says "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar", it reads MUCH MORE like Vattel's definition of "Natural Born Subject", NOT Blackstone's.
Restated: It sure the hell sounds like Justice Gray believes "common-law" is Vattel.
Hmmm...
|
