Replies

As you can see for yourself, via the image I have previously provided, the translations are wrong. Even so, you are skipping over the fact that Our Founding Fathers read the French of Vattel, not the translation.

I read and speak French. “Naturels” most definitely means, “Natural.”

Here’s a game for you: Go to Google’s French to English translator and enter in the word, “naturels.”

http://translate.google.com/#fr|en|naturels

Now, did it give you “natives” as a translation, or did it give you “natural?”

Now, go to Google’s English to French translator and enter in the english word, “natives.” Did it translate “natives” into “naturels” or, did it translate it into “indigènes?”

http://translate.google.com/#en|fr|natives

Like I said, Our Founding Fathers read and spoke French quite fluently. They were given copies of Vattel that were written in French. They would have quite naturally translated and interpreted “naturels” to be “naturals,” not “natives.”

Likewise, they would have translated and interpreted “indigènes” to mean “natives,” and not “naturals.”

That the English translations of Vattel have incorrectly translated “naturels” is of little consequence when you consider that Our Founding Fathers were reading the French version.

Cheers

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;

So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.

I understand your position and admire your command of French. Your problem remains this:

In 250 years, no professional translator has ever once translated "naturels" to "natural" in a single English edition of de Vattel. It has always been translated as "native" in every single such edition from the first English edition in 1759 to this very day.

So... your confidence that any of the Framers might have instead come up with the otherwise anomalous "natural born citizen" is misplaced, unless you can come up with a single example of a single Framer who actually mentioned citizenship and de Vattel in the same breath.

In contrast, "natural born subject" was a commonly used term of art in English common law, familiar to the Framers, most of whom were lawyers who practiced that law. And it is English common law that the Supreme Court has explicitly used in discussions of American citizenship law... not de Vattel