Replies

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?

But what we fought over was the right of those who, though born as British "subjects" have the right to expatriate and beomce "citizens" of the constitutional republic of the United States of America. What is at issue is the clause concering a a "natural born citizen" not a subject. By ignoring the difference between "citizen" and "subject" you misrepresent Story's position concerning "citizenship" as opposed to being the "subject" of a monarch.

It is quite clear that the translations of the time use the phrase and that the authorities of the time understood it the way that they did. If you are not familiar with John Marshall's opinion in The Venus,(1814), (joined by Livingston), which appears to be the case, I suggest that you read it. I also suggest, since you appear not to have done so, that you read the comments of St. George Tucker at the end of his 1804 American edition of Blackstone, which was pre-eminent at the time, where he notes the differences between the English common law as set out in Blackstone and the Constitution, including the phrase in Article II at issue. Somehow I don't think you have the authority of either of these gentlemen, much less Story.

Yes, of course Vattel wrote in French. I find your point in post 176, “that de Vattel defined a phrase in English that he never used”, to be deliberately confusing. So we can only quote the French version? Or we have to say, “In French he said...”

Yes, you are correct of course; he did say it in French. But hm ... I find that kind of “truth” to be slick, oily, and well, insincere. You hurt yourself with that I think.