Replies

Regardless, do you know what the universal and essential training of AMERICAN lawyers was, before, during and for perhaps 100 years after Independence?

It was English law.

For those aspects of American law which were the same. For those aspects of American law which were uniquely American, Training in the British law was a Detriment. As Attorney General Black had pointed out in 1859, the British law was contaminating American law with erroneous opinions and doctrines.

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Really? Because HE WAS THERE. He was in PHILADELPHIA, throughout the Constitutional Convention, and he is KNOWN to have met with both Franklin and Washington in Ben Franklin's home in Philadelphia in the months before the Convention.

And yet he was not a Delegate. What's more, while the Delegates had been spending the last 12 years reading and studying Vattel, Grotius, Puffendorf and Locke, Rawle was busy learning the English version of law. That he was simply not up to speed is the kindest way to put it.

In fact, they had ongoing meetings, so it's almost certain that he continued in close company with them AFTER the Constitutional Convention.

Yes, I can see them all sitting around the table discussing the single most important topic regarding the new government; What the words "Natural born citizen" meant. I would sooner believe that they all assumed the term was non controversial, (like "the right to keep and bear arms") and regarded it as unworthy of discussion or clarification. Those who studied Vattel believed that it required two citizen parents, and those who studied British law believed it simply meant being born on the King's soil. That each would unwittingly think the other shared his belief on this point is quite plausible, and it explains very well why there is so much subsequent confusion with some authorities holding the strict standard, while others held the lenient standard. (Just as Justice Waite noted in Minor v Happersett.)

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Were you there, DL? Were you in Philadelphia? Did you know Ben Franklin and George Washington personally? Did YOU spend hours and hours discussing political and legal matters with them in Ben Franklin's home?

If you didn't, then before William Rawle who did, I think there is only one valid thing you could possibly do.

And that is: Shut the hell up.

Mindless, pointless, ad hominem attack. Oh, and non sequitur.

You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.

Prosecuting crimes in a state is a very different task from running a nation. International law is usually unnecessary to the function of an Attorney General. Perhaps Rawle would have been called out quicker had he been involved in the State Department.

No, but it proves he was in a HELL of a better position to know something about it than you ever were.

Another ad hominum non sequitur. I may very well have access to information of which Rawle never knew. That Franklin and other Founders had used the Dumas publication of Vattel as a code book for exchanging secret communications during the war, is a possible example. That the book was quite the rage on the American continent during the previous 13 years, even being referenced in two ratifying conventions is another.

Well, it was the majority of the Court, in the deciding Opinion, that referenced Rawle's quote. And they did so specifically in regard to citizenship, in a discussion that talked extensively about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.

To which court? The Marshall court? The Waite Court? The Fuller Court? The Marshall and Waite courts used Vattel's definition. The Fuller court references Rawle, but I am suspecting they sought out and found references that supported the decision they wanted to Render. Fuller and Harlan (the dissenters) were Democrats, while most of the Majority was Republicans, with only one Southern Democrat. (Edward White) I suspect politics had more to do with it than did actual jurisprudence. The Republicans were the party of an expansive Liberal interpretation at that time.

As for Vattel in The Venus, he wasn't even referenced regarding citizenship. He was referenced regarding DOMICILE. And the translation wasn't even the one that says "natural born citizens."

Citizenship and domicile are interrelated. Marshall QUOTES Vattel on citizenship verbatim. Presumably in the days before typewriters, Marshall had to write out Vattel's definition in long hand. It's hard to argue that he didn't agree with the definition when he specifically said:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says..."

And then laboriously writes Vattel's definition.

Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.

Another non sequitur. That nobody ever said it was wrong (of which we are aware) does not prove it to be right. In reality, there has been little need test the distinction between "citizen" and "natural citizen." For most of the nation's existence, Rawle's definition works just fine. In the 19th Century, few came here who were not intent to stay and be citizens. Modern times have certainly changed that dynamic with the introduction of "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism."

So that is a thoroughly, thoroughly LOSING argument.

Not at all. Not only does it have the advantage of being sensible as opposed to the "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" byproduct of your theory, It has historical support and it also addresses what appear to be paradoxes in your theory. (Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves not begatting citizens.) From the common sense perspective, your's is the weaker of the two theories.

In fact, any Vattel argument you can come up with is a losing one. Historically, you have absolutely no evidence that the Framers paid the slightest attention to him in the Presidential eligibility clause. And it is prima facie, on-its-face OBVIOUS that "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen" when we changed "subject" to "citizen."

You mean none that YOU will acknowledge as evidence. We've got plenty of evidence that the Framers paid quite a lot of attention to him. He was even mentioned prominently in two Constitutional ratifying conventions. You just don't want to look at any of the evidence because you don't want to SEE any evidence which contradicts your preconceived notions.

I suspect that this subject is personal to you or a close friend or family member. You act like someone who does not posses objectivity.