Posted on 09/08/2024 10:19:42 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at calameo.com ...
You are such a liar! You know good and well that you read it, and it kinda stung you! That’s a good sign for you! When you start to feel ridiculous, then that means that you will want to start putting some distance between you, and your moronic belief system.
You believe what you want to believe deary. I know you will anyway.
“He [Rawle] is a London trained lawyer (London only teaches British law)”
You know who else were London trained lawyers?
These Framers of the Constitution.
John Blair of Virginia studied law at London’s Middle Temple.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina studied law London’s Middle Temple, attended Christ Church Christ Church College, Oxford, where he heard the lectures of the legal authority Sir William Blackstone and graduated in 1764.
John Rutledge of South Carolina studying law at London’s Middle Temple in 1760
William Houston of Georgia legal training at Inner Temple in London.
John Dickinson of Delaware In 1753, Dickinson went to England to continue his studies at London’s Middle Temple.
Of the remaining lawyers at the Convention most were trained in the 1760s so they would have been trained in English Common Law as it applied to the American colonies.
“His father [Rawle’s] was a British Loyalist”
No. His father, Francis Rawle died in 1761. His step-father, Samuel Shoemaker was a loyalist.
“That case referenced with William Lewis and Jared Ingersoll is “Negress Flora v Joseph Graisberry”.”
Also often cited as Negro Flora v Joseph Graisberry.
Rawle argued that the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution outlawed slavery.
“Accordingly they arranged the famous case of Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry, and brought it up to the Supreme Court of the state in 1795. It was not settled there, but went up to what was at that time the ultimate judicial authority in Pennsylvania, the High Court of Errrors and Appeals. Some seven years after the question had first been brought to law this august tribunal decided after lengthy and able argument that negro slavery did legally exist before the adoption of the constitution of 1790, and that it had not been abolished thereby.”
In Massachusetts the same argument had been successfully used in Littleton v Tuttle, 4 Massachusetts 128
And it was a bullsh*t claim when Massachusetts did it too. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the framers of the Massachusetts constitution meant when they borrowed that "all men are created equal" line from the Declaration.
John Blair of Virginia studied law at London’s Middle Temple.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina studied law London’s Middle Temple, attended Christ Church Christ Church College, Oxford, where he heard the lectures of the legal authority Sir William Blackstone and graduated in 1764.
John Rutledge of South Carolina studying law at London’s Middle Temple in 1760
William Houston of Georgia legal training at Inner Temple in London.
John Dickinson of Delaware In 1753, Dickinson went to England to continue his studies at London’s Middle Temple.
And they went through the process of creating American law (based on Vattel's ideas) while William Rawle did not. Notice the dates they graduated versus when William Rawle graduated? *HE* was not exposed to any of the cauldron of creation in regards to US Independence.
Yes, the Nation kept up the English law practices for everything that was not expressly rejected by American principles of government. Do you know the thing which was *MOST* rejected by the principles of American governance?
Being a "subject."
We rejected the idea of "subject", and we rejected the foundation on which "subject" was based.
Rawle argued that the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution outlawed slavery.
He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a "citizen", and therefore all slaves born in America were free.
“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen”, and therefore all slaves born in America were free.”
Do you have a link to his brief where he made that argument?
Adams used the two terms in a draft commerce treaty with England in 1785.
Of course since it requires two citizen parents there were no natural born citizens in 1783 and 1785 except for those born after July 4th, 1776.
You know the court records are lost. You must know that if you've looked at the case as well as you seem to have done.
You have to read his history, and then surmise he did the same thing he always advocated doing.
You can also get some insight by reading what his co-counsels wrote.
You know, prior to the advent of federal governance under the Constitution of the United States, but by virtue of our Declaration of Independence (as enforced by our subsequent military victory over the British), each former North American British colony constituted its own sovereign state and thus would have boasted of its own cohort of natural Born adult citizens, properly so-called as defined by natural law and the Law of Nations, as declared/set forth/defined, for example, by de Vattel.
“Natural Born Citizen of the United States” was not yet a thing, though, admittedly, and required time to “grow” once “naturels” began being born after the ninth state approved the new COTUS.
Hence the Hamilton-enabling grandfather clause. Bastard brat of a scotch pedlar.
“You know the court records are lost”
Of course I’m aware that the record’s of the case are lost but your statement on what Rawle argued seemed to go beyond speculation (“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen””).
I thought maybe you had come across some other documentation (letters, diary entries, etc) from Rawle, Ingersoll or Lewis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.