Well, contrary to what other “experts” on the internet might tell you, Vattel DID use the term “Natural Subjects.”
I found it years ago in a 1770ish French copy.
It’s in section XVII, and NOT the Natives and Indigenes section that everyone seems to promulgate and dissect, ad nauseam.
Here’s what I found in the original:
[...] Les fujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]
Now, let me bring that up-to-date for you by getting rid of Ye Olde style of spelling:
[...] Les sujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]
Now, let me translate it for you:
[...] The natural subjects of the Prince are attached to him [...]
Pretty cut and dry.
So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?
Just my two cents.
That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.
I see nothing that Cruz has done which goes against that litmus test. Ergo, even though I have doubts as to if Cruz actually dotted all the “i’s” in his Natural Born-ness paperwork, his loyalty to America does indeed seem to pass the Original Intent of the Natural Born requirements for a President. And, barring any unforeseen trips to Canada wherein he stumps for Canadian politicians, I’ve got no problem voting for him if he wins the primaries.
On the other hand, Obama... Well, let’s just say that Obama is the very One Our Founding Fathers warned us about and is why they felt so motivated to insert that Natural Born Clause!
Cheers!
I am a huge fan of Mr Rogers, and have seen an awful lot from him that is just SPOT ON.
That said, DoctorBulldog, I do believe you have at least a small point here. (See, I'm not totally one-sided!)
I would have to side with DoctorBulldog on this and say that a reasonable translation of "sujets naturels," in English, would be "natural born subjects." So technically well, a point for DoctorBulldog.
That said...
I have just searched the French text of Vattel's book. The sentence you mention is the ONLY time he mentions either "sujects naturels" or "sujet naturel" (the singular form) in the entire book.
Aside from that, the ENTIRE POINT, the ENTIRE CLAIM of birthers is that "natural born CITIZEN" is (against all reason and sense) something totally different from "natural born SUBJECT."
And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.
And he ONE time he mentions "sujets naturels," he shows no sign at all of talking about his his "natives," or "indigenes."
So even Vattel, it appears, knew the difference between a "natural born subject," and "natives, ou indigenes."
Point: DoctorBulldog. Next point, game, set, and match: Mr Rogers.
I agree ‘sujets naturel’ is the proper phrasing, in that time, for natural born citizen or subject. It is the phrase used in French legal documents that referenced English natural born subjects.
I was unaware that he used the phrase once.
“So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive...”
Not deceptive. An error, but only to the extent that he used the phrase once, in a passage I’ve never seen a birther reference. The passage birthers care about is when Vattel said the NATIVES, or INDIGENES (indigenous persons) have two citizen parents.
Vattel never said that NBS/NBCs require two citizen parents. That came from a bad translation in 1797, but the underlying words in French are NOT ‘sujets naturel’. Yet birthers have claimed thousands of times on FR alone that Vattel said a NBC requires two citizen parents. And Vattel never wrote that.
The fact you have discovered, that he used the correct phrase one time, is only proof that he was aware of the phrase, and that he chose NOT to use it in his often mis-cited sentence.
Birthers also ignore the context of Vattel. Even today, the Swiss are more concerned with parentage for citizenship, not birth location. That is a valid point for international law, and for how some countries on the European continent view citizenship, but it has never been the custom of England or the USA to look primarily to parentage.
“That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.”
Nope. They didn’t write that. The litmus test for a natural born citizen was identical to the litmus test for a natural born subject - birth under the Sovereign. NBC & NBS were used interchangeably by the ratifying legislatures for years before and after the Constitution. They are the same phrase, and it was one with an accepted legal meaning.
They could easily have written, “The President must be born to citizen parents and have lived at least 75% of his life within the USA”. Of course, Rev Wright and Bill Ayers are proof that THAT wouldn’t result in loyalty to the country. Hell, Hillary Clinton and JFKerry (who served in Vietnam, don’t you know) are both born to two citizen parents, and they both hate the USA and God as much as Obama does.
In the end, the Founders required birth within the USA, or possibly birth to citizen parent(s) outside the USA.
Someone born in the USA to two citizen parents, who moved to Iran at 3 months, and who lived there for 40 years, who then moved back and lived for 14 years in the USA would meet the criteria by all standards to run for President - but would that person be fundamentally American? Probably not. Just as Obama is fundamentally a God-hating, racist anti-American.
VOTERS have the responsibility of ensuring loyalty to the USA, but it seems the majority of American voters no longer care about America or the principles our country was founded on.