Replies

So, we have two individuals from the founding generation that we know were "intimately familiar with Vattel's work and that Vattel defined natural born citizen as born in the country to citizen parents." I recognize that only a very small percentage of that generation had probably heard of Vattel, but can't we find more than two? Remember, we're searching for an "original understanding" here, an understanding that was shared by the "ordinary citizens in the founding generation." And, the evidence is that we can only find two people who were familiar with Vattel's definition? Please, there must be more than that. Isn't there?

BTW, did either of those two claim that we must confine ourselves to Vattel's treatise (either English or French version) to provide meaning to the "natural born citizen" clause?

*********************************************

To paraphrase Master Oogway, “Should not, should, doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is.”

Good for you. Yes, indeed, what does exist does matter.

So, I guess the fact that we have a sitting president who does not conform to what you claim would have been Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen" is what is. "Should not, should, doesn't matter. What matters is that it is." So much for Vattel. What does Oogway's wisdom do but short-circuit this matter and unfairly prejudice your claim that we should adopt a standard that doesn't conform to what currently is?

*********************************************

While I agree with you on the taxes, I’m not sure how you get comfortable making statements about what children learn behind closed doors in any home in the US.

Beyond taxes, we're talking about national allegiance and loyalty. My point is that allegiance and loyalty emanate from the individual and not from some foreign government. If someone wishes to question Ted Cruz's national allegiance or loyalty to the Untied States, then they should make that case to voters and their electors. He's an American citizen and I know of nothing that he's done to suggest that he feels that he owes Canada any taxes, any allegiance, any loyalty, or anything at all.

“So, we have two individuals...”

So, off the top of my head I named two individuals. Do you really expect me to go back and name them all? By the way, I’m still waiting on your response to my question about naming people who did NOT.

“...did either of those two claim that we must confine...”

I don’t know about you, but if there’s a definition of a word or term, don’t you have to “confine” your interpretation to that definition? It used to be that way back in the day, but, if you live in the world of liberalspeak where we live now, there is no specific definition to any word or term. Words just mean what you want them to mean at the time you use them. It doesn’t really matter what the definition of “is” is.

“So, I guess the fact that we have a sitting president who does not conform to what you claim would have been Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” is what is.”

Yes, and you see the results. Doesn’t mean that we can’t try to change it.

” He’s an American citizen and I know of nothing that he’s done to suggest that he feels that he owes Canada any taxes, any allegiance, any loyalty, or anything at all.”

Well, as long as you “feel” that he “feels” that that way, I guess that’s all that really matters.

So, we have two individuals from the founding generation that we know were "intimately familiar with Vattel's work and that Vattel defined natural born citizen as born in the country to citizen parents." I recognize that only a very small percentage of that generation had probably heard of Vattel, but can't we find more than two? Remember, we're searching for an "original understanding" here, an understanding that was shared by the "ordinary citizens in the founding generation." And, the evidence is that we can only find two people who were familiar with Vattel's definition? Please, there must be more than that. Isn't there?

Justice Bushrod Washington:

1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.