>> Well *they* did. They didn’t add “natural born”, and one can only conclude this was done deliberately. <<
Yes, and the reason is absurdly obvious: Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. It is absolutely normal to extend the legal reasoning/interpretation/doctrine used in one case to another related issue. In fact, just about every case that actually makes it to the Supreme Court does just that. If you thought I meant that the Supreme Court had already ruled that someone was or was not fit to be president, no, any such ruling would necessarily determine who was president after an election had happened in order to be ripe and would represent an absolute crisis of democracy, and to insist that such a holding could not be based on any previous holding should be made independent of any previous dicta and in fact in could be made in direct opposition to previous dicta is to demand that the Supreme Court decides elections without any predictability.
>> Your snippet only argues that the English common law rule can be imposed by statute. <<
Your interpretation renders the argument meaningless since of course laws can be imposed by statute so long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, the dissent was making the rejected argument that common law needed to be enacted, rather than being the context in which our incredibly sparse Constitution was enacted. Emphasis on REJECTED.
>> The 14th says “citizen.” It does not say “natural born citizen.” If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, they make it clear they regarded the 14th amendment as a “naturalization” process. <<
For former slaves. Naturalization is the process of becoming Natural, herein meaning “native,” as opposed to those who are born Natural. Hence, everyone is either naturalized, or natural-born. You can’t be a citizen without being either.
>> Where was the US Constitutional convention held? Philadelphia, right? Do you think the legal community of Philadelphia might have an idea what they meant by “natural born citizen”? Here is an excerpt from a Law book from 1817 Pennsylvania. This book deals specifically with what British laws remained in effect after the US was created. <<
That book’s thesis doesn’t make your point that Natural Born Citizen does not mean citizen by birth, but rather that a child of aliens is not a citizen at all, which was actually contradicted by a much older case, the name of which I don’t recall, but it argued that a girl was a citizen despite her father dying having never attained citizenship. (Ark argued that Ark was a citizen despite his father having returned with him to China.) That book’s theory is in direct opposition to Ark, and the city it was published in does not make it authoritative to U.S. law.
>> I don’t know why I should feel any compulsion to defend someone else’s thinking, which may or may not conform to my own. I can defend my positions quite well, but I do not know if Justice Melvin and Justice Fuller had thought of everything or availed themselves of all the information that I have. <<
As you point out, they absolutely certainly had access to Vittel, and even in their dissent of those who reject Vittel, reject his basis of citizenship.
>> The 14th says “citizen.” <<
It does, but it cannot accept Vittel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (actually, “native”) while rejecting his definition of “citizen” altogether. You can’t reject the superset without rejecting the subset.
You could have just said "they dodged the issue."
Oh, by the way, that same Dicta precludes Ted Cruz from being a "natural born citizen." I'll point it out to you if you like.
Your interpretation renders the argument meaningless since of course laws can be imposed by statute so long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution.
Can a law make a man into a woman? Nature says "no."
I spent a great deal of time looking for the origins of "natural born citizen", and what I discovered is that everything the founders did derived from "natural law" which was a big concept in the 18th century, and which has largely been forgotten today.
According to natural law principles, a Law cannot make anything natural which is not already natural.
In fact, the dissent was making the rejected argument that common law needed to be enacted, rather than being the context in which our incredibly sparse Constitution was enacted. Emphasis on REJECTED.
I don't put a lot of stock in the opinions of the court, and even less so when they are not unanimous. I can form my own opinions quite well, and therefore all I want to see is *EVIDENCE* not what someone else thought about something. (Unless their thoughts are *EVIDENCE* as in the case of the founders who were involved in the process.)
For former slaves.
Oh, so you are arguing that this law they passed which naturalizes former slaves, ceased being a naturalization law once it had dealt with all the slaves?
Why wouldn't it continue being a naturalization law? Does the law take note of the status of slaves and handles them differently or is it just a general statement that applies exactly the same to everyone?
Naturalization is the process of becoming Natural, herein meaning “native,” as opposed to those who are born Natural. Hence, everyone is either naturalized, or natural-born.
And if it naturalizes the slaves, it naturalizes everyone who becomes a citizen as a result of it.
That book’s thesis doesn’t make your point that Natural Born Citizen does not mean citizen by birth, but rather that a child of aliens is not a citizen at all, which was actually contradicted by a much older case,...
God forbid that we might contradict some other mistake made in the past!
That book’s theory is in direct opposition to Ark,...
Why would it be in opposition to Ark? Ark says that *BECAUSE* of the 14th amendment. Ark is a "citizen."
Yeah, they passed an amendment to naturalize people since that book was written. It doesn't change the law at the time the book was written.
That book only deals with natural citizenship, not artificial citizenship like the 14th amendment.
... and the city it was published in does not make it authoritative to U.S. law.
Pretty much does. It is as close to the root of the system as it is possible to get. That other people got it wrong later, mostly thanks to people like William Rawle (A view of the Constitution) *DELIBERATELY* misleading people on the nature of US citizenship, doesn't change the fact that this book is very good evidence of the Framers original intent regarding "Citizen" in lieu of "Subject."
As you point out, they absolutely certainly had access to Vittel, and even in their dissent of those who reject Vittel, reject his basis of citizenship.
Their access to Vattel has nothing to do with it. The necessary piece of information they need to arrive at a correct conclusion is "What did the founders mean by "natural born citizen"?
That Pennsylvania law book, which they may or may not have had access to, makes it clear what the founders intended with changing us from "Subjects" to "Citizens." It is better evidence than we have to believe they intended to follow the English Common Law definition for English "Subjects", while applying it to this new "Citizen" thing.
It does, but it cannot accept Vittel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (actually, “native”) while rejecting his definition of “citizen” altogether.
The 14th has nothing to do with Vattel. It is a naturalization law created to give citizenship to freed slaves. It doesn't create natural citizens, it only creates naturalized citizens.
Citizenship should be viewed genetically. Anyone born to people with it, posses it's attributes (and none other) naturally. Everyone else is just adopted.
The land you are born on doesn't alter your genetic makeup at all. It was just a good rule for the King to force allegiance from anyone born on his property, as he would a cow.