[AmericanVictory]

His allusion, it seems, was to the situation in Shanks v. Dupont. There an Englishman came here, married an American colonial woman, both of whose parents were citizens of the then colony of South Carolina when she was born. The British officer and his American colonial life then went to England and had a family there. In holding that she could inherit from her parents, Joseph Story, speaking for the majority in what is controlling precedent, held that concepts of citizenship were derived by the Framers from the law of nations not from the "mere municipal" common law of England.

This precedent has never been overturned.

The great fallacy in your argument is that while it is evident that a positive opinion of Vattel and his formulations such as the definition of a "natural born citizen" was common in the relevant discourse of the time. By contrast there was no such positive mention of English common law in that discourse and in fact there was criticism of it. It remains the case that opinions such as that of Gray in Wong Kim Ark rely upon the vague generality that the Framers were "familiar" with English law and do not decide upon the Article II phrase which was not before them, nor do they give a single specific example of what such familiarity led to in the way of defining the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article II. 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.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

In holding that she could inherit from her parents, Joseph Story, speaking for the majority in what is controlling precedent, held that concepts of citizenship were derived by the Framers from the law of nations not from the "mere municipal" common law of England.

Is this the same Justice Story that wrote the following?

With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.

The great fallacy in your argument is that while it is evident that a positive opinion of Vattel and his formulations such as the definition of a "natural born citizen" was common in the relevant discourse of the time.

But we've been over this already. de Vattel wrote in French; he never used the phrase "natural-born citizen." He said "les naturels ou indigènes." Moreover, as stated in the very first post of this thread, it's not at all incontrovertible that the ONLY way to translate "les naturels ou indigènes" is "natural-born citizen."

The fallacy in your argument is to insist that de Vattel defined a phrase in English that he never used.

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.

And which case is this?

[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.