Again, you assert this without evidence: nothing available indicates that Rawle tailored his anti-slavery arguments with regards to citizenship, instead of regarding more fundamental ideas regarding all men being born "free and independent."
and one of them being Rawle, who asserted in the future that Citizenship is given by birth
One does not tie into the other. Even an overview of Rawle's 1825 work "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" does not display any indication that he held slaves to be citizens due to being born in America (at least none which I've been able to find). One can believe that slavery is immoral, and that the slaves deserved freedom, without then claiming they therefore qualified as citizens.
See? Here I am arguing for your "precedent" idea, in the Pennsylvania court system of the 1800s.
You've not even gone that far, because you haven't actually provided any precedents of Rawle's to look at to support your assertion.
Even the document you linked to was a eulogy delivered about Rawle after his death; it does not intimate whatsoever that Rawle's ideas about birthright citizenship were tied or influenced by his opinions about slavery. As a matter of fact, the eulogy itself states the following on page 24, providing a motive for Rawle's efforts as an abolitionist (bold is emphasis mine):
"For such devotion there can be but one motive, and that is, humanity; there can be but one recompense, and that is the blessing of the bleeding and broken heart, upon which the soul shall be wafted to the bosom of its God. His doctrines upon this subject, which were the doctrines of Franklin, of Lafayette, of Rush, of Wilberforce, may be scoffed at by some—condemned by others—they may not have been safe doctrines to live by, but they were safe to die by; and, for my single self, I should ask no prouder inscription for my humble tomb, than - HERE LIES THE FRIEND OF THE FRIENDLESS AFRICAN."
Again, as previously supported by other sources cited: Rawle's animus against slavery was seemingly tied to more fundamental beliefs about the common man. Nothing cited by you or myself supports the contention that his ideas about birthright citizenship were motivated by his anti-slavery fervor.
What else would they be?
You've not even gone that far, because you haven't actually provided any precedents of Rawle's to look at to support your assertion.
You mistake my meaning. I am referring to the Courts declaring Vattel the correct source of natural born citizen, and the lawyers of Pennsylvania should have followed that. Instead, Rawle chose to buck "precedent."
Nothing cited by you or myself supports the contention that his ideas about birthright citizenship were motivated by his anti-slavery fervor.
I've already told you that I did this research 10 years ago, and I no longer have a ready reference to all the stuff I found. I found enough to convince me, and at the end of the day, I'm the only one *I* feel the need to convince of anything.
The Notion that Rawle deliberately wrote English common law as the source of citizenship ties in neatly with his efforts to abolish slavery.
Is this not how slavery was abolished in England? I am certain this is *THE EXACT* argument that made slavery illegal in England.
So wouldn't it be natural for Rawle (British trained lawyer) to apply this same idea in America?
But on a different subject, I started reading your Ramsey, and he makes perfect sense on one point.
Not only does the previous conventional wisdom rest on surprisingly thin scholarly foundations, it faces daunting textual and historical challenges. If anyone born a U.S. citizen is eligible to the presidency, the word "natural" in the Eligibility Clause seems superfluous. To give it meaning, there should be some "born" citizens who are not "natural born." Further, in General in eighteenth-century legal language, "natural" meant the opposite of "provided by statute." Natural law was the opposite of positive law; natural rights were rights that predated codification. The most obvious meaning of "natural born Citizen" thus is not a person who claims citizenship from a statute, but rather a person whose citizenship comes from the natural state of things.
This is exactly correct.
And then here, he goes off the rails.
Modern U.S. law generally grants citizenship at birth to persons born abroad with either a U.S. citizen mother or a U.S. citizen father. If foreign-born citizens deriving citizenship only from their mother are eligible to the presidency, it cannot be because the American Framers adopted the English rule in effect at the time of the founding. Rather, it is because the Framers conveyed to Congress, through the Naturalization Clause, the power to define “natural” citizenship.
Absolutely incorrect and wrong. Congress has no such power. You cannot turn a man into a woman by creating a law. So too you cannot make a "natural" citizen out of a naturalized citizen.
"Naturalization" is an adoption process. It is not a direct descendant by birth process.
This is where I lose any enthusiasm I may have had for reading his opinion. You can't get this so very wrong and then conceivably produce anything reasonable thereafter.