Replies

"You thus admit that Blackstone did not use the specific phrase at issue, which is "natural born citizen." A natural born "subject" of the king in England is not the same as the phrase actually chosen.:

The US Supreme Court calls BS on that. I quote again from Wong Kim Ark:

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

Fullers dissent remains a dissent. It is the argument that lost 6-2.

It also remains the case that Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship as set out in the 14th Amendment. It was not in any way about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and as pointing out in Schneider v. Rusk the 14th Amendment did not affect that provision, a fact which you deny without justification. In fact, the term "citizen" was not used in England at the time of the revolution and for seveal hundred years before then. That under the 14th Amendment there is a precise analogy going back to Calvin's case is irrelevant for purposes of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The Supreme Court has never ruled that there is a precise analogy between the term "natrual born citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is the precise equivalent of "native born subject" going back to Calvin's case in 1608, where Coke based the decision on natural law and the divine right of kings, concepts alien to our constitutional converntion, whose members were not enamored of the Stuart kings, to say the least. The holding in Calvin's case was rooted in feudalism and legiance, things not greatly admried by the participants in the constitutional convention. Almost everyone who did particpate however was aware of Vattel's work and his use of the specific phrase "natural born citizen." The concerns voiced in John Jay's famous letter to Washington two weeks befor the first use of the phrase by the Committe on Particulars was of foreign influence, a concern not compatible with your interpretation based on an amendment that would nto occur for another four score and some years.