Replies

This is correct. The English had their own version of "natural law" in which it was natural to be ruled by a King who was appointed by God to rule over everyone. But we forked away from that version to the one that said men had a right to rule themselves...Our forking over to "citizen" meant we were going Republican, not Monarchist.

I refer you to Zephaniah Swift's 1795 treatise cited in post #39: "The common law of England is obligatory in this state by immemorial usage, and consent, so far as it corresponds with our circumstances and situation. As we have no treatise upon our laws, we are under the necessity of becoming acquainted with the English code for the purpose of understanding our own. The operation of the English common law, is ascertained by no general rule, and is bounded by no known line: it can be learned only from the decisions of our courts. A common law peculiar to ourselves, resulting from our local circumstances, has been established by the decision of our courts; but has never been committed to writing."

That we ejected the monarchal rule of England in favor of a constitutional republic in no way implies nor necessitates that the common law system in use (along with how terms were understood) was likewise rejected.

If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.

So in other words, you would discard American legal/judicial precedent and commentary that's been around for the majority of our country's existence. (This would, naturally, render you unable to use the arguments of anyone after 1868 that is arguing in favor of a "natural born citizen" definition that fits your desires.)

What an unserious retort.

Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.

And your evidence that the author, Michael D. Ramsey, is a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" is...what, exactly?

Ramsey was a clerk for Justice Scalia, is an editor and contributor to the Originalism Blog, and — from the following 2016 symposium about Scalia from 'Law & Liberty' — is quoted as saying: "Scalia’s originalism did not fully prevail (or, more optimistically, has not yet prevailed). Sometimes it did, at the Court, as in Heller. Sometimes it influenced the Court’s majority, even in opinions that were not fully originalist. Often he was in dissent, but less often was he alone. The originalist position in Noel Canning (2014) got four votes, not one. Lower courts began producing originalist opinions. Lawyers included originalist arguments in their briefs. Law professors and commentators began arguing over it. His achievement—I think an irreversible achievement—was to make people think about originalism. Today no one can teach or study constitutional law without thinking about originalism. We can’t talk about new Supreme Court appointments without talking about originalism. No one can litigate a constitutional case without examining the Constitution’s original meaning. We take that for granted now. It’s important to remember how much that has changed in 30 years, and how much of that is owed to one man."

Do such laudatory words of Scalia and his originalism sound like they came from a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" to you? (And besides, even if they did, they would not make the pre-1868 sources he cites in that essay in favor of his argument disappear.)

Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself. The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.

You miss the point of the whole paragraph, then: namely, that 'natural born subjects' and 'natural born citizens' were used interchangeably by many in the early years of America, insofar as legislative, judicial, or legal purposes are concerned.

To quote from Ramsey's essay in question: "Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular named individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state and (in others) “natural born citizens.” As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts referred to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."

That Jefferson used "citizen" in the Declaration instead of "subject" does not undermine this point whatsoever.

I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place! Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem

Using Vattel's definition of citizenship would have rendered numerous children of immigrants (not yet naturalized) in the early years of America into non-citizens, for one thing.

But I digress: the issue is that, despite your professed preference for Vattel, the historical record (insofar as America is concerned) is overwhelmingly in favor of "jus soli" overriding "jus sanguinis" in terms of determining who is and is not a citizen of this country. You may not like it (I certainly don't; I personally prefer it!), but history is against our preferences.

Hence why I think your attempts at arguing 'no, the judicial, legal, and common law precedents going back over two centuries are all wrong!' is an exercise in futility.

If you want Vattel's understanding of "natural born citizen" to take hold in America, you will need a constitutional amendment to codify it as thus. That's the bottom line.

I refer you to Zephaniah Swift's 1795 treatise cited in post #39:

Looked him up. He doesn't seem to have been a member of the Constitutional convention, but he might have been a member of Connecticut's ratifying convention.

I guess some people didn't get the word.

More like than not, the distinction between Vattel's definition (which was what they intended) and the English law version, was insignificant in the early days of the Republic, because one was not likely to be here unless one's parents intended to be citizens.

The distinction was not likely discussed, and everyone just presumed they knew what was meant, even thought they may have had differing opinions on the topic.

Everything that was in conflict with American principles of law and government was rejected. See that book by Roberts based on the "report of the judges."

Corruption of blood was rejected. Debtor's prison was rejected. Church of England was rejected. Numerous and sundry aspects of English law were rejected because they were seen as incompatible with American principles.

So in other words, you would discard American legal/judicial precedent and commentary that's been around for the majority of our country's existence.

If you mean I don't let other people do my thinking for me, but instead prefer to look at original documents and first principles to arrive at my own conclusions, then yes, I discard American legal/judicial "precedent."

"Precedent" is just a dressed up fallacy known as "Argumentum ad antiquitatum." (That's the way we've always done things." :)

(This would, naturally, render you unable to use the arguments of anyone after 1868 that is arguing in favor of a "natural born citizen" definition that fits your desires.)

Well it's tainted by Rawle, isn't it?

And your evidence that the author, Michael D. Ramsey, is a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" is...what, exactly?

A likely guess. Turned out to be wrong, but most of the time you can bet anyone defending Obama, is on that side of the spectrum.

Since you have given me a better idea of his background, I might actually take the time to read his 46 pages of argument, so long as he argues from first principles and original intent. If he starts down that "precedent" road, i'm gonna bail.

And in 99.9999% of the cases, that works fine. But in the one case where it matters, it doesn't. The English law definition does *NOT* solve the loyalty problem. The Vattel definition *DOES* solve the loyalty problem.

Why did the founders want the "natural born citizen"? To guarantee loyalty.

"Magic dirt" does not make loyalty. Upbringing does.

Hence why I think your attempts at arguing 'no, the judicial, legal, and common law precedents going back over two centuries are all wrong!' is an exercise in futility.

Well this is true. Idiot courts are going to do what idiot courts are going to do. You might be surprised to learn that I have a rather derogatory view of courts in general, and not just on this issue. I regard our entire court system as incompetent at best, and corrupt at worst.

We have examples like Derick Chauvin being convicted of Murder from a piece of human trash dying of a drug overdose.

Yeah, our legal system is very broken and dysfunctional.

If you want Vattel's understanding of "natural born citizen" to take hold in America, you will need a constitutional amendment to codify it as thus.

You just need the media-liars brainwashing the public for decades. That's all you need. The herd mentality courts will eventually follow.

Now just for kicks and grins, i'm going to toss you this bit of information that you may not know about.

This was allegedly written by James Madison when he was president.

Monday, October 7, 1811

https://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf

Whoever "Publius" is, he certainly knows details of the case that President Madison would know, but unlikely that anyone else would know. The case of James McClure is a fascinating case. General Armstrong (Ambassador to France under Madison) treated him exactly as if he had been British instead of an American.

Don't these people just know that being born in the US made you a citizen? For some reason they thought it didn't count in the case of James McClure.

Madison had to have his arm twisted before he sent orders for our Ambassador to France to use his office to secure McClure's release from the French Prison where he was being held as an English prisoner.

It took Congressmen and a Supreme Court justice getting involved to pry Madison loose off of McClure. Madison really really really did not want McClure released from that French prison. :)

Woodpusher is a good researcher. Perhaps he can find the correspondence between Ambassador Armstrong and President Madison which I never could find.

I found the order form Madison to secure McClure's release, but I never found much in the way of correspondence between Armstrong and Madison.