Vattel

Various

[Abd al-Rahiim]

John Marshall, certainly the most renowned and authoritive jurist of the time, on the other hand, goes directly to Vattel's relevant section and says that it is controlling.

If you're talking about "The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)," then I'd like to note the following:

1. Justice Bushrod Washington delivered the Opinion of the Court, not Chief Justice Marshall.
2. Chief Justice Marshall cited de Vattel in his CONCURRING opinion. Since when is a concurring opinion controlling?
3. The translation Chief Justice Marshall used did not use "natural-born citizen"! Rather, it stated, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," which is almost a literal translation of de Vattel's French.
4. The phrase "natural-born" or "natural born," without the hyphen, doesn't appear anywhere in any of the Opinions to Venus.

[AmericanVictory]

I never said that Marshall wrote the majority opinion but what he said is quite clear in his reference to Vattel’s phrasing as being the source of the concept. He scarcely can have been referring to anything else. As such I believe he carries geater weight and is more persuasive than yourself. And what about St. George Tucker?

[AmericanVictory]

I never said that Shanks mentioned Vattel. All I said was it made it clear that the Framers looked to the law of nations on matters of citizenship and not to the English common law. To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

[WhiskeyX]

No, they incompetently assumed Chester Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada. They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

Because the records were sealed for 70 years, the invesitgators did not have access to the naturalization records which would have disclosed the father’s naturalization after the son’s birth.

[WhiskeyX]

No, they incompetently assumed Chester Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada. They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

Because the records were sealed for 70 years, the invesitgators did not have access to the naturalization records which would have disclosed the father’s naturalization after the son’s birth.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I never said that Marshall wrote the majority opinion but what he said is quite clear in his reference to Vattel’s phrasing as being the source of the concept.

Then what is the relevance of Chief Justice Marshall's concurring opinion? As I asked, since when is a concurring opinion controlling? To paraphrase WhiskeyX, it's just dicta. Moreover, your claim that "It is quite clear that the translations of the time use the phrase [natural-born citizen] and that the authorities of the time understood it the way that they did" is decisively shown to be false, given that a DIRECT QUOTE of Chief Justice Marshall's concurring opinion reveals that he either used a separate translation or translated de Vattel himself: "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

The Venus

Furthermore, neither "natural-born" nor "natural born" appears anywhere throughout any of the opinions to The Venus.

What about St. George Tucker? What he says may corroborate your position; I'd have to read it first, but The Venus certainly does not.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

What was Shanks about? Was it about defining who a natural-born citizen is? Or was it about

...whether her subsequent removal with her husband operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British crown, by the treaty of peace of 1783. Our opinion is that it did.

As for "maintain[ing] to the contrary," could you please explain to us, then, why Chief Justice Waite, in his dicta to Minor, found "resort" in "common law," instead of "the law of nations"?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

You say that the "records" were sealed for seven decades, and so investigators couldn't discover that Arthur's father was naturalized after his birth. If you please, answer me one question: Did they know that Arthur's father was born on Irish soil as an Irish subject? They didn't know about the post-birth naturalization, fine. But did they know that?

[WhiskeyX]

To paraphrase WhiskeyX, it's just dicta.

No, I wrote the dicta are not binding precedents precedents on the decisions of later courts. That in no way says they are not authoritative statements which may or may not be used by a later court to inform its own decision.

[WhiskeyX]

The Democrats hired a fellow named Hinman to investigate Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur gave an interview to the newspaper/s disclosing his father emigrated from Northern Ireland to the United States. Chester Arthur lied, because his father emigrated from Northern Ireland to Canada, before emigrating from Canada to the United States. Hinman did not have access to the immigration records that we have today. He had no means of knowing where to look in order to find the naturalization papers for the father. Since the son was born in the United States, no naturalization papers for Chester Arthur could exist.

[WhiskeyX]

Why'd he consult "common law" instead?

You keep trying to utilize Supreme Court cases which attempt to define the Constitution's natural born citizen phrase as equivalent to and arising from the definition used by British common law. Does this mean you are arguing the natural born citizen phrase of the Constitution is defined by and the same as the British natural born subject?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

A deeper discussion regarding Vattel is found here. I noticed that Wong Kim Ark was mentioned and googled to this page. While I’m no lawyer or authority, this issue is not easily dismissed. It had been debated here for years.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

It is unfortunate that the “supreme” Court has proven itself to be anti-Constitution at times. We cannot look to the Kelo Court, for example, as being godlike. Even back in the 1800s, we had creeps in that court.

The real question is not court precedent. The real question is Original Intent. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that many misinterpretations arose from the amendment passed after the Civil War, such as “no establishment of religion” being mushroomed to ridiculous heights.

Did people after the Civil War intend children of foreign fathers to be qualified as “natural born” and President? Our Founding Fathers did not, so who did?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Interesting point. So the supreme Court did not have all the facts during that trial?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Linking Bushpilot’s earlier Vattel thread to here ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499410/posts?q=1&;page=451

Also, an excellent summary about the Founder’s original intent and Vattel:

a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

I summarize it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2712868/posts?page=120#120

[WhiskeyX]

Which trial and facts?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Sorry, FRiend, for causing confusion. I was referring to your earlier post about Chester Arthur. I must have misunderstood.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

That in no way says they are not authoritative statements which may or may not be used by a later court to inform its own decision.

And yet, none of the "authoritative statements" I have quoted directly from Minor or Wong Kim Ark convinces you. Why is that?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Smack! So Wong Kim Ark does NOT dispute Vattel/Natrual born? “Native born” instead of “natural born”. Anti-certifigaters have been parroting a lie?

[Repeating your link]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Did they actually clear up the meaning of “natural born” in Wong Kim Ark or did they use the term, “native born”?