Replies

This implies to me that they (the FFs) instead chose to signal adoption of the English common law concept of “natural born subject” in its adjectival phrase form (”natural born”), and tacked it onto their usage of “citizen” as a modifier, as is allowed by the English language.

A *LOT* of people want to make that logical leap, but the evidence is against it.

Much of people's desire to assert English Common law as the basis of "Citizen" is the result of William Rawle explicitly saying so in his book "A View of the Constitution."

Rawle was wrong. In fact he was lying. He knew he was wrong, and he printed that in his book anyway.

How do I know that he knew he was wrong? He made this argument in the case of "Negress Flora vs Joseph Graisberry" and the Supreme court of Pennsylvania voted Unanimously that he was wrong and told him he was wrong.

Additionally, Samuel Roberts, a judge in Pennsylvania, wrote a book based on the report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding what British laws remained in effect, and the book explicitly shows that British Common Law was rejected as the basis of Citizenship. It *SAYS* that Vattel was the source of the meaning of citizenship in the United States.

This book was widely sold in Pennsylvania and the surrounding area, and was also reprinted in 1840. It *TOLD* William Rawle he was wrong about the source of American citizenship, yet he published his book saying the opposite, anyway.

I wish I could take you through the journey that I went through learning all the things I learned about this subject. I am greatly condensing some essential points here, but the evidence indicates the source of US Citizenship is Vattel's definition, not English Common Law.

Much of people's desire to assert English Common law as the basis of "Citizen" is the result of William Rawle explicitly saying so in his book "A View of the Constitution."

A view of the Constitution of the United States of America by Rawle, William, 1759-1836 (citizen)

same link as above. (common law)

Where do you find that? There are the links so you shouldn't have any problem stating upon which page Rawle does so. I've even made the links available with the search results for "citizen" and "common law" loaded.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

He made this argument in the case of "Negress Flora vs Joseph Graisberry" and the Supreme court of Pennsylvania voted Unanimously that he was wrong and told him he was wrong.

Sadly, that case eludes my ability on finding things online. Do you perchance have an online reference? Trust, but verify. You know how it is.