Vattel

Lately, we have been bombarded by various people trying to say what is was/wasn't that Vattel had to say, and whether his opinions mattered

Emmerich De Vattel was born 1714 of Swiss parentage. At an early age he became interested in literature and philosophy. Now there are much better and detailed biographies on the web, so I won't bore everybody with all the details I read. Suffice to say he spent many years with positions provided by the courts (the royal courts) and composed a number of works.

He was deeply influenced by an earlier work called "The Law of Nations" by Christian Wolfe, the problem with the earlier work being that it had been composed in Latin and was not a work for general use.

He (Vattel) completed his first edition of "Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle", or what we now call "The Law of Nations" in 1758.

He died in 1767, in what I believe was France, though I haven't verified it yet.

Now the arguments about using Vattel as a reference have taken a couple forms. First, there seems to be an argument that he was perhaps a more obscure reference at that time and was not internationally accepted.

Another argument is that he never used the exact term "natural born citizen", so that what he was speaking of does not apply.

Vattel was aware of what was happening in America before his death. At least in terms of the settling of America.

At the end of Chapter XVIII, Occupation of a Territory by a Nation, he says "However we can't help but admire the moderation of the English Puritans who were the first to settle New England. A;though they bore with them a charter from their sovereign, they bought from the savages the lands they wished to occupy. Their praiseworthy example was followed by William Penn and the colony of Quakers that he conducted into Pennsylvania"

Vattels work was known in Europe and to the founders that had traveled there. There are a number of historical references that prove that which the reader can find on his own.

In 1775, eight years after his passing, Charles Dumas, a Swiss living in Holland, brought out a new edition and sent 3 copies to Benjamin Franklin. Franklin wrote "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations". This was in December, 1775.

The founding fathers were aware of and impressed by Vattels mentions of New England and Pennsylvania, and took it to heart. The work became an almost instant classic in pre-revolutionary Ameria.

By 1780 his work was considered a classic and was a textbook at the best universities.

They knew of it enough so that it is quoted in Supreme Court decisions even before the Constitution was written or ratified. In Miller v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolutions, the court said "Vattel, a celebrated writer on the laws of nations, says, 'when two nations make war a common cause, they act as one body, and the war is called a society of war; they are so clearly and intimately connected, that the Jus Postliminii takes place among them, as among fellow subjects.'" This decision was by the Federal Court of Appeals, Aug, 1781. Cited as 2 US 1 or 2 Dall 1

We see that not only was it known to the founders, it was already being used in the universities and quoted as operative law in the fledgling courts of the United States justice system.

First, anyone who reads the item whether translated or in the original French has to admit he never used the exact phrase "natural born citizen".

But!!! On reading what he said, the wording and the context, there can be no doubt at all of EXACTLY what he meant.

The section is from Chapter XIX, entitled "One's Country and various matters relating to it". Sec. 212, Citizens and Natives. It is on pps.

"The members of a civil society are it's citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to it's authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who were born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of it's citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latters rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by merely tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I REPEAT THAT IN ORDER TO BELONG TO A COUNTRY ONE MUST BE BORN THERE OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country."

(the above is from: Les droit des gens, Translation of the 1758 edition, Charles G. Fenwick, published Carnegie Institute of Washington,

Les citoyens sont les membres de la Societe Civile; Lies a cette Societe pars certains devoirs, & formie a son Autotiteil particiant avec egalite a les avantages. Les NATURELS, ou INDIGENES, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens. La Societe ne pouvant se soutenir & se perpetuer que par les enfans des Citoyens; ces enfans y suivent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Peres, & entrent dans tous leurs droits. La Societe est cenflee le vouloir ainfi; par une suite de ce qu'elle doit a la propre confervation; & l'on presume de droit que chacque Citoyen, en entrent dans la Societe; reserve a les enfans le droit d'en etre membres. La Patrie des Peres est dons celles des enfans & ceux-ci deviennent de veritables Citoyens, par leur simple consentement tacite. nous verrons bien-tot; si parvenus a l'age de raison, ils peuvent renoncer a leur droit, & ce-qu'ils doivent a la Societe dans laquelle ils sont nes. Je dis que pour etre d'un pays, IL FAUT ETRE ne D'UN PERE CITOYEN; car si vous y etes ne d'un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans etre votre Patrie"

Note: The above is from the 1758 edition. As with early American English, it was common to write an "S" as an "f". I have tried with my limited knowledge of French to make the corrections, and think this is pretty darn close to the original.

Another note: Vattel uses the phrase "Les Naturelles ou Indigenes" which pretty much translates to "The naturals or natives"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I doubt anyone can read the above and not know EXACTLY what the founders meant by "natural born citizen". They wanted someone who, in Vattels words, "Belong(ed) to the Country, which means a person born on the soil of parents who were citizens, at the very least born on the soil OF A FATHER who IS A CITIZEN!

If Obama was born in Hawaii, were both his parents Citizens? No. Was Obamas FATHER a citizen? No.

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.

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

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?

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."

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,...

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.

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.

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..."

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!!)

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.