Replies

I’ve been reading your posts – and you are disingenuous (to say the least) …

The plain truth of the matter is that the term “natural born citizen” is ambiguous (at best) in our current day vernacular. That is why SCOTUS needs to definitively declare what an NBC is (or isn’t). SCOTUS HAS NEVER RENDERED A DECISION AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NBC.

Your assertion that it was settled in the Ark decision is WRONG. True, the issue’s background was discussed at length in the decision – and Justice Gray even stated HIS PERSONAL belief that Ark was an NBC. HOWEVER, the decision was rendered SOLELY on the basis of the fourteenth amendment – and nothing else. That is what the justices voted on. It is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph of the opinion. AND THE DECISION SIMPLY DECLARED ARK TO BE A CITIZEN. I suggest that you read the original cases/citations cited in the Ark decision – and NOT rely on Justice Gray’s words. For, he bastardized several of the conclusions that were reached in those cases/citations. See Calvin’s Case and Dicey, specifically.

As for Blackstone, his writings are commentaries on English Common Law and not the law itself. And, as for his assertion that children of foreigners who are born in Britain are natural born subjects – DON’T FORGET THAT HE INSERTED THE CAVEAT “GENERALLY SPEAKING” IN THE DEFINITION.

I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a “denizen” – who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties. A denizen enjoys most, if not all of the rights of citizenship – EXCEPT THAT OF HOLDING HIGH OFFICE.

As for Vattel being too late to have influenced the writing of the Constitution …

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law was written in 1758 – and John Adams said that any lawyer worth his salt kept a copy on his night stand …

And, FYI, Vattel died in 1767 – I hope you are not claiming that he wrote the book more than 20 years later …

Obviously, my opinion is that Obama is not an NBC - but it is the province of SCOTUS to make a determination. However, it has skirted the issue in multiple cases over the course of 220 and some odd years ...

"The plain truth of the matter is that the term “natural born citizen” is ambiguous (at best) in our current day vernacular. That is why SCOTUS needs to definitively declare what an NBC is (or isn’t). SCOTUS HAS NEVER RENDERED A DECISION AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NBC."

I cannot help but note your qualification "in our current day." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell all of us here have been arguing about original intent at the time of the Framing. The ambiguity in "our current day" is a completely manufactured controversy that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. At that time there was only one definition for natural born citizen in the English language. There can be no ambiguity when there are no other options.

The Supreme Court does not need to "render a definition" when the controversy is fake. They are proscribed from doing so by the "cases and controversies" clause.

"And, as for his assertion that children of foreigners who are born in Britain are natural born subjects – DON’T FORGET THAT HE INSERTED THE CAVEAT “GENERALLY SPEAKING” IN THE DEFINITION."

And we all know the exceptions that warranted the caveat. he expresses them explicitly; children of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.

"I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a “denizen” – who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties."

"Denizen" has no meaning in American Constitutional law. You will not find the word anywhere in the Constitution. We continue to speak here about "natural born citizen" and the only definition for it that existed at the time of the Constitution's framing.

"The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law was written in 1758 – and John Adams said that any lawyer worth his salt kept a copy on his night stand …

And, FYI, Vattel died in 1767 – I hope you are not claiming that he wrote the book more than 20 years later …"

You come late to the conversation. The copy of Law of Nations on John Adam's nightstand said nothing about natural born citizens. Neither did any other edition until it was inserted by an unknown translator into the 1797 London edition.

The only folks demanding de Vattel come back from the dead (or alternately that the Framers mastered time travel) are the folks promoting the impossibility that de Vattel has any influence over the definition of natural born citizen found in Article II of the Constitution.

On Vattel

Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel’s influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.’’ In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,’’ that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}’’ James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel’s {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.’’ Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

The Law of Nations} and The Declaration of Independence

Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.’’

The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,’’ is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel’s arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the ``inalienable rights’’ of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’’ and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,’’ but since they ``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,’’ we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, ``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.’’

The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel’s Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration’s Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke’s philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to ``Life, Liberty, and Property.’’ The inclusion of ``the pursuit of happiness,’’ rather than ``property,’’ as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.