Ummm, I read the entire case, thanks. You will also remember that when I cited it I said this case used the same definition as Vattel, not that this particular case was a ruling on the natural born clause of the constitution. Ummmm so let’s go back shall we and once again look at what Vattel wrote in 1758:
In Book One, Chapter 19; Section 212 - “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
So now lets look at what Shanks v. Dupont actually does say shall we?
“..under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.” (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242)
“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 245)
I’m thinking here you are the one that needs to go back and re-read this case and note the comparisons between the above quotes and the above quote directly from Vattel. The liberal talking points you are regurgitating regarding this case instead of actually READING the thing aren’t helpful.
You posted a very helpful link regarding the case of Ex Parte Reynolds so I’ll reference that one since you were so kind enough to post it in an attempt to refute me. Unfortunately you should have READ the entire link. (P.S. It was much more than just a ‘murder case’ – it was a paper that in-depth was discussing the citizenship status of native Americans). Yet that part went over your head probably because once again you were just regurgitating liberal talking points and really didn’t bother to read anything yourself. You MISSED the following:
Page 58 of “Citizenship of the United States, et. Al – “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, [Hint: Jus Solis] are no more born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” – Justice Gray
Page 59 – “In Ex Parte Reynolds, supra, the question was discussed at some length……..Their offspring follows the condition of the Father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status.”
Page 68 – “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations [Catch this? Vattel is being directly quoted from here which is exactly what I said …”actually cites Vattel in this case”] (p. 101) says: ‘As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights.***The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again on page 102, Vattel says: “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”
Now on to the Federalist Papers. As you know the Federalist Papers (Oct 1787 – May 1788) are 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Go back and read them again because the main focus of essays 2-5 (written by Jay) entitled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence” were written to impress and focus upon the need for a strong central government in order to protect the nation from foreign military, but also to suggest that a strong central government can help protect a nation from foreign influences. Concern about foreign influence also appears in Essay number 20 (written by Hamilton and Madison); Essay 43 (Madison); and Essay 66 and 75 (Hamilton). The key one is Essay 68 (Hamilton) where he discusses the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence. Here’s a quote for you:
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
Now what better way for a foreign power to gain ascendancy into our government than by having a child born of a foreign citizen become President???? Get the point yet??? That’s EXACTLY what these essays are talking about.
A final quote:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Representative John A. Bigham (OH) Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)]
Your problem isn’t the lack of documentation – its that you don’t want to accept what has already been written. Therefore, your needing 'more proof' is not and never will be the issue.
Mmmmmmm. Sorry, it didn't work.
Let's get this straight. You lost your credibility when you tried to tell me things were in the Federalist Papers that aren't there. I certainly have no further interest in your legal research, or opinions for that matter, since the quality is so poor questionable.