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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That old newspaper citation is worthy enough of citing in full (italics and punctuation as in original, brackets are added by me for clarification as needed; underline is emphasis mine). Quote:
----
FROM THE RICHMOND INQUIRER.
CASE OF JAMES McCLURE.
The Case of this man has made a good deal of stir in the U[nited] States—and has lately been revived by a letter, from a Mr. John Rodman, dated Paris, 4th July 1811, and addressed to the Editor of the "United States Gazette." The facts appear to be these:
James McCLure was born in the U.S. on the 21st of April 1785—some months after his birth (that is on the 20th Feb. 1786), his father was duly naturalized under the laws of the State of South Carolina. The son remained in the U.S. until the year 1795 when he was sent to England for his education. He has not since returned to this country; but resided for some years in England, and then made a trip to Holland and other parts of the continent.—His father also left the U.S. and returned to his country; G[reat] Britain.—Some time in the year, 1807, Mr. James McClure dispatched from England, the famous ship Horizon destined to Lima: which was wrecked on the rocks of Morlaix, and as is generally known, was the very first case in which the Berlin Decree was put into execution against the U.S.—Mr. McC[lure] went to France to reclaim the property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister in London confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S. On the 12th April 1810, an order was issued by the Minister of War, directing, "that in consequence of information to (him) from the minister of general police, and which he has received from the Minister plenipotentiary of the U. States", Mr. J[ames] McC' should be detained in France "as an English prisoner of France." Accordingly he was arrested at L'Orient——sent under parole, and placed under surveillance at Tours. Gen. [John] Armstrong [Jr.] would not interfere on his behalf——on the 16th of March, 1810 he writes him that the certificates of his father's naturalization, and of his own birth and baptism, were not sufficient; they only provide that his father is an American Citizen, and that he himself was born in the U.S. and that "the evidence that will reach the case & substantiate (his) claim is a certificate copy of the act of S[outh] Carolina, naturalizing (his) father, provided that act naturalizes also the children of (his) father born before its own date."
Mr. Rodman afterwards met with Mr. McClure at Tours, and being touched with his situation, determined to intercede with Gen. A[rmstrong] on his return to Paris. The general was however about to leave France—and Mr. R[odman] thought fit to address himself to Mr. Russell, Charge d'affaires at Paris. In reply, Mr. [Jonathan] R[ussell] tells him that "Mr. McC' must claim to be a citizen of the United States either under a law thereof, or under a law of the state of S. Carolina; that Gen. A' not considering the law of the U.S. to embrace the case of Mr. McC', required that he should show himself be within the provisions of the state statute: that the words if dwelling in the U.S. appear to occasion the whole difficulty deciding on the rights of Mr. McC'. "Is this dwelling (continues Mr. R[ussell]) to be at the time of the naturalization of the father; at or after passing the law, or the time of claiming to be considered a citizen? Gen. Armstrong, it seems, decided against the first, and the two last are conclusive against Mr. McClure. As I act under Gen. A' in this legation, it is not competent in me to admit appeals from his judgment." Mr. Rodman also applied to Mr. [Alexander] McRae, our consul in Paris, to whose department the granting of passports had been transferred—their correspondence went off upon a subordinate point, which it is not necessary to state—It is certain, these applications did no good to Mr. McC', who yet remains perhaps under surveillance at Tours.
In my Judgment, however, our minister has erred in his decision—& Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what it is——If the case of Mr. McClure comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802—which is in these words: "The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the U.S. may have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parent's being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the U.S. be considered as Citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S. be considered as citizens of the U. States: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the U. States, &c. &c."
And now, what is the case of James McC'? His father was citizen of the state of S. Carolina, before any act was passed by the United States "on that subject." James McC' is then the child of a naturalized citizen—he was "under the age of 21, at the time of his naturalization"—So far his case is within the law. The only doubt is, as Mr. Russel says, as to the expression "if dwelling in the United States." When must he have dwelt in the United States? To what period of time, does the section point?—If to the the time of "passing the law," the expression would not have been so vague—Congress would have put in some definite phrase, as "at this time" or "now," as they do immediately after in the same section.—If to the "time of claiming to be considered a citizen," then is the party both a citizen and not a citizen; a citizen in the United States, but not one out—in which case, the citizen father has greater rights than his citizen son, because the father has all the rights of one, both within the United States and elsewhere.—By the same rule it is, that if a man were to be naturalized for 20 years, and then to marry and have a child, that child could not dwell in a foreign country without an absolute forfeiture of his rights. It is doubtful whether the legislature of the United States have ever contemplated such a state of things—for, by this rule, thousands who are now considered citizens would really cease to be such.
To my eye, the spirit of the act appears to be this—that the child should be with the parent, dwelling in the United States with him at the time of his naturalization—thus distinguishing between those children who are with him at that time, and those whom he has left behind him in his native country. The law naturalizes the former with him by saying grace once over them, as Dr. Franklin said: presuming that as they are here at that time, they will remain here for life; but the same grace does not extend to those who have remained behind. Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, "all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth," is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen—but the U. States' act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.
If it be said the law is defective, we shall not dispute the point. We shall not say, but that it ought to deprive every naturalized foreigner of the privileges with which it had clothed him, provided he returns for a certain series of years to that native domicile he had abandoned.—And again, might there not be an[sic] United States' expatriation law? For, as we permit a man to enjoy the rights of a freeman to move from his country at the call of his own interests, we ought also to permit him to snap the ties which bind him to that country. Thus, if found in arms against us, would he not be treated as a rebel, instead of a prisoner of war?
These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence——The case of James McClure is clearly a nice one——and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to General Armstrong in this transaction, still there is dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.
PUBLIUS
----
End quote.
So here are the facts of this particular series of events.
James McClure [hereafter McC] was born in South Carolina in 1785, when the Articles of Confederation were still the governing document of the United States; not the Constitution. His father was subsequently naturalized; however, according to an act of the United States (namely, the Naturalization Act of 1802), the following provision would have applied: "Sec. 4 . And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may-have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States : Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen, as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed."
James McC, to pursue his education, left this country in 1795 at the age of 10. As far as is known from this record, he never returned to America between 1795 and 1807.
James McC, at the age of 22 in 1807, leaves England to claim property from a shipwrecked vessel that had been interred in France. However, due to the mentioned decree of Berlin passed in 1806 by Napoleonic France, the following articles applied to the vessel "Horizon" as a result of the blockade placed on Great Britain: "No vessel coming directly from England, or from the English colonies, or having been there since the publication of the present decree, shall be received into any port. Every vessel contravening the above clause, by means of a false declaration, shall be seized, and the vessel and cargo confiscated, as if they were English property."
James McC, in 1810, is arrested in France as an English prisoner. (Undisclosed: the reason for the gap between 1807 to 1810, or why the passport issued by the American minister in London [who from 1803 thru October 1807 was James Monroe; his successor as ambassador, William Pinkney, did not officially become ambassador until February 1808; however, he had worked alongside Monroe in a co-ministerial position as early as 1806, so McClure's passport would have been issued by either Monroe or Pinkney) was rejected by the French authorities; any potential concerns regarding diplomatic conflicts with Britain and/or France in light of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars is also left unmentioned.)
Publius then recounts the attempted appeals by one John Rodman to both John Armstrong Jr. (America's then-ambassador to France), Jonathon Russell (the 'Charge d'affaires', i.e. the diplomatic chief of mission acting in lieu of the ambassador, as Armstrong's successor, Joel Barlow, had not yet arrived; this likely explains why Russell claimed he could not "admit appeals" to Armstrong's judgment, as the ambassador outranked him), and finally Alexander McRae, the acting American consul at Paris.
Now, it should be said: before going into his rationale, the pseudonymous Publius first states outright that General Armstrong had erred in his decision, and that James McClure should have been recognized as a citizen.
That being said, regarding the section you specifically highlighted, wherein Publius rebuts Mr. Rodman on the matter of James McClure's birth in the United States to be sufficient on the matter of birthright citizenship: he does not absolutely deny his claim, but distinguishes based on state. As Publius noted: had Mr. McClure been born in Virginia (where "an alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen", since "Virginia considers him as as son of the soil"), then he would have been a citizen of the United States solely on account of birth. However, the laws of other states (such as South Carolina) were, apparently, not so liberal with regards to "jus soli"; hence why Mr. Rodman's claim was not universally true for all states, but only for some.
Lastly, based on Publius's final remarks, and given the facts regarding James McClure's life (after leaving the country at the age of 10 in 1795, he did not return whatsoever between then and 1810, where he was 25 years of age; it is not disclosed in this newspaper record if James McClure ever returned), it is not unreasonable to consider whether his actions constituted voluntary expatriation (i.e. a voluntary renunciation of his American citizenship).
Overall, this case is not as open-and-shut as you seem to imply (as Publius himself admits, it comes with "dubious complexion"), since it involves, among other things: differences in state laws regarding citizenship, the actual difficulties with regards to timing of who is and is not a citizen given the switch from British colonies to American states (per Publius: "It is doubtful whether the legislature of the United States have ever contemplated such a state of things—for, by this rule, thousands who are now considered citizens would really cease to be such."), apparent defects wrought by ambiguous terminology in promulgated Congressional legislation, whether the person in question had de facto voluntarily renounced his American citizenship, and potential intrigue involving foreign powers then at war with each other (one of which we would end up declaring war with not even a year after John Rodman's letter was published in the United States Gazette).
/but overall, it was well worth transcribing