“I cannot grasp why he thinks those quotes are relevant to discussion.”
The Massachusetts legislature uses the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably from 1785 through 1791.
Remember what Justice Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller,
“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”
So what would the ordinary citizen of Massachusetts understand the term “natural born citizen” to mean?
The same as they understood the term “natural born subject” to mean?
Here is what Blackstone said about natural born subjects,
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
And what Zephaniah Swift said was the law of Connecticut,
“The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
And what William Rawle said,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Wow. What a timely post.
DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.
And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.
So me where I said they didn't.
-----
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Rawle ALSO said;
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
How do you think the States could keep track of all that? Oh yeah!
He's talking about REGISTERED resident aliens.... you know - People who filled out paperwork acknowledging their Residency here which implied their Intent to stay.
Not someone who ran across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.
As this is the transition period from Monarchy to Free Republic, it is not even noteworthy that they were transitioning terms as well. Natural born Subject, and Natural born citizen are the closes analogous terms between the very different forms of government, but the requirements of the one was very different for the requirements of the other. The principle of someone claiming ownership or you merely because you were born on their Land, is incompatible with the foundation of American Government. Our Federal existence is based on Natural Law, not the enforced servitude to a King.