Vattel

Various

[Abd al-Rahiim]

So we can only quote the French version?

You can quote an English translation, but you can't claim that de Vattel said "natural-born citizen" or that "natural-born citizen" is the only way to translate "les naturels." As demonstrated in The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall himself did not use the 1797 translation which employed "natural-born citizen," and The Venus was decided in 1814.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Do you have any evidence for your claims? As in direct quotes from sources that I can verify?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I'm not saying that original intent isn't a branch within originalism. I'm merely pointing out that the dominant strand of originalism is original meaning. As Justice Scalia has said, "You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words."

Source

[WhiskeyX]

With regard to what?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

The actual word, “natural born” was used? OK. So when was the Constitution amended to allow sons of foreign men to qualify as President? The only TRUE way the Constitution is changed is through an amendment.

You presume that "natural-born citizens" must have citizen fathers. Does the Constitution say that?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

There are more authoritative opinions supporting the ineligibility than eligibility.

Such as? Which ones and which statements (i.e. dicta) within them?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Absolutely, they knew the difference between “subject” and “citizen” and would have accepted the definition that recognized that they were not subjects anymore but citizens!

Then explain why Chief Justice Waite, in his dicta to Minor, resorted to "common law" to define "natural-born citizen."

[Abd al-Rahiim]

It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

Are you kidding me? de Vattel isn't cited ANYWHERE in Minor! Chief Justice Waite CLEARLY resorted to "common law":

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,...

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Because it was pertinent to the question of whether or not the Constitution determined who was and was not eligible for suffrage, which was the purpose of of the case and its decision.

I want to make sure that I haven't misunderstood you or confused you for someone else with similar views. You've said that it doesn't matter what de Vattel said, yes? And, you've said that "anyone with half of a brain" knew what "natural-born citizen" meant in 1788, and it meant what you think it means: born to citizen parents?

Then why didn't Chief Justice Waite employ your reasoning in Minor to "determine who was and was not eligible for suffrage"? Why didn't he say

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. However, since the time of the Founding, it is clear that a natural-born citizen is one born to citizen parents.

?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

You're claiming that Arthur lied on the campaign trail about his family ancestry. Sources for that, please?

[djf]

I explained to you in post 59 when I translated the French that there is essentially NO syntactic difference in Vattels use of “Les naturels ou indigenes” and the Constitutional “natural born citizens”

If Vattel had said “Les Clownes” and the founders had written “the clowns with big shoes, funny noses and hair” it would take a person who is extremely intellectually dishonest to try to adhere to a position that they were not talking about the same thing.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I explained to you in post 59 when I translated the French that there is essentially NO syntactic difference in Vattels use of “Les naturels ou indigenes” and the Constitutional “natural born citizens”

That's not what you said at all. Your own translation was, "The naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of citizen parents." You yourself did not translate it as "The natural-born citizens are those..."

[djf]

I absolutely did translate it. I had 3 years of French a long time ago, and still know enough to translate simple phrases and sentences.

And I pointed out to you that vattel’s sentence used the word “Naturals”, it used the word “born” (as nes) and these persons would by default be citizens because their parents were citizens.

There is no question they are talking about the same thing.

There is also no question about this:
The founders had access to Vattel. He is mentioned and referred to many times. So there is NO argument that they did not mean the same because Vattel was unknown
The founders DID NOT KNOW about any of the court decisions that keep getting cited here. EXCEPT THE ONE I POINTED OUT THAT HAPPENED IN 1781!! Any of the further decisions are INTERPRETATIONS, and CANNOT be relied upon to be able to successfully understand what the founders meant.

Justice Story himself is quoted as saying court decisions ARE NOT LAW, they are merely EVIDENCE of the law.

Had Vattel explicitly used the phrase “Natural Born Citizens”, then the founders came along and used the simple word “naturals” in the Constitution, there might (and properly I would say) be an argument or discussion about whether they meant the same thing.

But it didn’t happen that way. They used the “Natural” (a real, live human being) Born (Born here!!! They meant what they said!!) Citizens (Citizens by birth!!)

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I absolutely did translate it.

I never said you didn't. I said you didn't translate it as "The natural-born citizens are those..." And, you didn't. I directly quoted your translation: The naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of citizen parents.

There is no question they are talking about the same thing.

If that were the case, then why didn't Chief Justice Waite find resort in de Vattel as opposed to "common law"?

EXCEPT THE ONE I POINTED OUT THAT HAPPENED IN 1781!! Any of the further decisions are INTERPRETATIONS, and CANNOT be relied upon to be able to successfully understand what the founders meant.

Which case was that?

Had Vattel explicitly used the phrase “Natural Born Citizens”, then the founders came along and used the simple word “naturals” in the Constitution, there might (and properly I would say) be an argument or discussion about whether they meant the same thing.

Why would there be an argument there but not an argument here? de Vattel DID NOT USE the phrase "natural-born citizen." Your own translation didn't use it, either! You yourself translated it as, "The naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of citizen parents."

[djf]

The (NATURAL)s or natives are those who are (BORN) in the country of (CITIZEN) parents.

See it yet? If not, I give up, you are blind.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Let's get this straight. You acknowledge that de Vattel never used the phrase "natural-born citizen," but you insist that it doesn't matter because ONE WAY (i.e. your way) to translate his sentence is, "The naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of citizen parents." You then conclude that "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution follows YOUR translation of de Vattel's words because you can sequentially highlight "natural," "born," and "citizen" in YOUR translation.

OK.

Explain, then, why in The Venus, Chief Justice John Marshall did not use your translation? He used, and I quote, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." Applying your trick, I can conclude that de Vattel actually referred to "native"..."born"..."citizens."

And as luck would have it, Leo Donofrio has articulated that "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" aren't the same thing. So sorry, djf, your analysis is flawed because it presumes that YOUR translation is somehow official. It's not. I can use your trick applied to Chief Justice Marshall's definition to conclude that de Vattel was actually writing about "native born citizens," which big bad birther Donofrio himself views as distinct from "natural-born citizens."

But all of this is unnecessary. You cannot answer why Chief Justice Waite resorted to "common law" instead of your trick to "ascertain" the definition of NBC.

[djf]

You are making it way more difficult than it needs to be.

Vattel is giving a definition.

If you walked up to Vattel and asked “Who is/are a natural?” he would have said those who are born in the country of citizen parents.

I IS NOT coincidence that the writers of the Constitution used the word “Natural”.

Unless you can show SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION OR REFERENCE as to what the founders meant when they used that word, the only reliable reference/meaning we have is Vattels definition.

Neither Vattel or the founders gave a rats rear end about what Waite said. No legislation or court decisions can change the intent of the founders.

[WhiskeyX]

You're claiming that Arthur lied on the campaign trail about his family ancestry. Sources for that, please?

Is Mr. Chester A. Arthur a Native Born Citizen? Brooklyn Eagle; Date: Aug 13, 1880; Page: 2.

Eligible: Mr. Chester A. Arthur to the office of Vice President. Brooklyn Eagle; Date: Aug 15, 1880; Page: 4.

[WhiskeyX]

Waite, in effect, did so. He was, however, also pointing to the obvious fact that there were a number of so-called "authorities" who were expressing their own opinions to the contrary. Since the case before the court for a decision did not involve a need to reach a decision about who was right and who was wrong about the definition about the definition of natural born citizen, he declined to do so and only noted the information before the court was sufficient for a determination with respect to the question of whether or not women had a right to suffrage as citizens.

Nonetheless, Waite did observe there was no question about a child of U.S. citizen parents born in the United States being natural born citizens.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I IS NOT coincidence that the writers of the Constitution used the word “Natural”.

I never said it was. My position is that "natural-born citizen" was to be understood in the context of "common law." My position is well supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence. (Though arguably dicta, even WhiskeyX acknowledges that dicta are "authoritative" by definition.) Yours is not. Moreover, your position relies on a ridiculous trick that I can use to show that de Vattel actually referred to "native born citizens." And Leo Donofrio has repeatedly argued that "native born" is different from "natural born," so no luck there, djf.

Unless you can show SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION OR REFERENCE as to what the founders meant when they used that word, the only reliable reference/meaning we have is Vattels definition.

I love this tactic. You can't argue against my source, so you demand that I give you another reference that corroborates it. I won't play this game, as I don't consider the tactic valid. You can't just dismiss evidence that you don't like. I have not done that in this thread. Instead, I have done justice to my teachers and examined sources as I was given them. I found out, for example, that AmericanVictory's claim that The Venus defined "natural-born citizen" was patently false, as Chief Justice Marshall's translation did not use the phrase, and moreover, the phrase doesn't appear at all in any of the opinions.