Didn't say he was......but the language was still that of the "Frogs".....and the last sentence still sums it up!
He coined the term......"natural born citizen" because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that. It's just silly to deny something so obvious.
Contrary to your negativity regarding this..... that's what folks called it....and wrote when referencing it prior to its inclusion in the Constitution.
It must be difficult not being aware of what most others uncover...... without too much trouble. John Bingham of Ohio (father of the 14th amendment) was still referring to it in the original...... when he stated in the House of Representatives (March 9, 1866) the following:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
The First Congress...3/4 of a century earlier (1790) had used the term as well:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(March 26, 1790)
Now....isn't it amazing that this term, "Natural Born Citizen" seemed to be in use quite frequently for the early years of this country? Do you imagine that it was just grabbed out of the air....or was the concept first developed at an earlier date?
Benjamin Franklin had this to say when writing to Vattel's editor on December 9, 1775:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
Do you suppose Franklin (who was fluent in French) added those words....."Natural Born Citizen"....or did they appear in his French edition? Maybe the editor had translated the publication himself into English.....adding those words.
Shame on him.
I won't call you stupid because I really don't know much about you.......but on the surface....you appear to just be silly.
[Vattel]coined the term......"natural born citizen" . . .
No he didn't. Vattel wrote in French. The earliest translated editions of his work didn't use the term "natural born citizen." However, that term WAS already in use in the U.S. For example, there was a series of naturalization acts in Massachusetts in the 1780's that used the terms "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject' in interchangeably. This has previously been documented on this forum. See Prior references By contrast, it wasn't until about 1797 that the English translation of Vattel using the term "natural born citizen" was published. So the logical conclusion is that the latter translation borrowed from existing English usage, rather than U.S. law borrowing from Vattel.
. . . because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that.
You haven't shown that those references trace to Vattel. You just assume away that problem with your argument.
Contrary to your negativity regarding this..... that's what folks called it....and wrote when referencing it prior to its inclusion in the Constitution.
Though prior to the inclusion of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, there is no document usage in English of that term which conveys the notion "of two citizen parents." None. Zippo. Nada. The far more reasonable conclusion is that the documented interchangeable use of "natural born citizen" with "natural born subject" points to the former taking the meaning of the latter -- at least as to the status of a person born within the jurisdiction. And we have documented the words of one prominent Framer -- Alexander Hamilton -- who confirms this view. Hamilton, writing on the topic of how Constitutional terms are to be interpreted (in that case, the taxing power) writes:
"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived [i.e., England]"
So there is much to suggest that "natural born citizen" finds its etymological root in the parallel English common law term "natural born subject." By contrast, there is little to support the notion the term derives from Vattel.
John Bingham of Ohio (father of the 14th amendment) was still referring to it in the original...... when he stated in the House of Representatives (March 9, 1866) the following:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
It's interesting that you quote Sen. Bingham, for I usually find that "Vattel" proponents claim that the 14th Amendment's language "born . . . in the United Stated, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . ." has nothing to do with the term "natural born citizen."
Are you here saying that the two terms are interlinked? Please explain.
Now....isn't it amazing that this term, "Natural Born Citizen" seemed to be in use quite frequently for the early years of this country? Do you imagine that it was just grabbed out of the air....or was the concept first developed at an earlier date?
It's not amazing, given that the term was used in the period leading up to the framing of the Constitution and then in the Constitution itself. The problem for your argument is this usage existed prior to the time Vattel was first translated using the term "natural born citizen." This fact makes it very problematic to argue that this earlier usage somehow reflects or derives from a later translation of Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin had this to say when writing to Vattel's editor on December 9, 1775:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
No one disputes that Vattel had influence. But his influence was principally in the area of international law. "Citizenship" is a matter of municipal (domestic) law. Why is it to be supposed that Franklin in this quote is giving the least hint that "natural born citizen" derives form Vattel? Blackstone had far more influence than did Vattel. And Blackstone had far more to say on matters of municipal law than did Vattel. In purely circumstantial (probabilistic) terms, it is far more reasonable to conclude Blackstone and the English common law served as the linguistic origin of the term "natural born."
I realize you are struggling mightily (like many others) to elevate Vattel. But it's ultimately a futile effort when the counter-evidence and arguments are offered.
He coined the term......"natural born citizen" because every reference to it during the 18th century said exactly that.
Every reference to what? To Vattel's sentence in the Law of Nations? I'm not sure that's the case. From what I've read, most English translations prior to 1797 rendered the phrase as "the natives, or indigenes." If you know of multiple references to Vattel from before the Constitution was written that render "indigenes" as "natural born citizens," I'd appreciate a cite. As I said before, I think that after the Constitution--a pretty influential document--it's hard to be sure a translator didn't borrow the phrase from the Constitution,
Of course, the meaning of the original French isn't determined by any translation. Vattel wrote "les naturels, ou indigènes..." "Ou" means "or," so he's saying that "the naturals" are the same as "the indigenes." A French dictionary of 1798 says "indigènes" means "people established in a country from all time"--in other words, pretty much what we mean by "indigenous." That makes sense in Europe, where the people who were from a place were also (for the most part) the people that formed the political state that matched that place. That wasn't true here--the indigenous people were not part of the United States, which was formed by people from elsewhere. So trying to map what Vattel meant in French to something that makes sense for this new country is not as straightforward as you would like.
And, of course, in no sense can Vattel be said to have coined the phrase "natural born citizen."