Replies

What direct quotation from Blackstone is that? If you were to read Chief Justice Fuller's well known dissent in Wong Kim Ark you would have a clearer picture of why during the constitutional conventions Vattel, along with Locke and others, was constantly discussed. the common law as you interpret it, which, I would say, indicates a lack of familiarity with its actual development, was not the influence that you say. There is no evidence that it was in the actual debates. to the contrary, when it was referred to in the final document, the reference was specific, as with regard to trial by jury. You are engaging in pure surmise unsupported by the historical record. The fact remains that "natural born citizenship" as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue in Wong Kim Ark.. You are distorting it beyond what it says. Would you say you are more authoritative on the actual point than John Marshall, joined by Livingston, in his opinion in The Venus?. He seems to have been a bit closer to the events and more learned than yourself. By the way on one day of the actual constitutional convention Martin of Maryland irked others by extended readings from Locke and Vattel and others. The incorrectness of your view was pointed out again by SCOTUS in Schneider v. Rusk in 1963 as recently pointed out by the 10th Circuit in Craig. Why do you delight so in misinforming people about the Constitution? Do you not have respect for it as the basis for our government or do you just enjoy being poorly informed? Perhaps you wish to do it and us harm and assist the massive fraud that is being perpetrated?

"What direct quotation from Blackstone is that?"

This one: "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765--1769. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Pp. 361-62

"If you were to read Chief Justice Fuller's well known dissent in Wong Kim Ark you would have a clearer picture of why during the constitutional conventions Vattel, along with Locke and others, was constantly discussed."

Fuller's "well know dissent" is still a dissent. His arguments lost the debate 6-2.

Please... show me exactly where de Vattel was ever mentioned once in any debate regarding the phrase "natural born citizenship." I have been asking other posters on this thread to be so kind as to show me such a debate, to no avail. All appear to believe such discussions took place, yet inexplicably none can point to them. Perhaps you can do what they have not?

"the common law as you interpret it, which, I would say, indicates a lack of familiarity with its actual development, was not the influence that you say. "

Other than as shown by the simple objective fact that the phrase itself was a common law term of art with no competing usage in the English language you mean?

The problem you face has always been this: There are two sources that have been proposed as the authority regarding the definition of natural born citizen. One of those sources (English common law) not only actually uses the term, but had at the time a 300 year history of using it as a specific term of art with a specific meaning. The other source (de Vattel) never used the phrase once in any language.

It is not difficult to figure out which source bears a genuine claim to authority and which bears none at all.

"to the contrary, when it was referred to in the final document, the reference was specific, as with regard to trial by jury."

And in contrast, de Vattel earned no mention at all.

"Would you say you are more authoritative on the actual point than John Marshall, joined by Livingston, in his opinion in The Venus?"

Of course not. But what I would point out is the the Venus case never mentions natural born citizenship once. It seems Birthers love the case because it mentions de Vattel and quotes the passage Birthers love... without noticing that it is not the anachronistic 1797 translation in which some unknown translator inserted a phrase that de Vattel never wrote; natural born citizen.

Neither Schnieder v. Rusk nor Craig's most recent loss in court support the inappropriately labeled "de Vattel definition" either. I note that you did not actually even attempt to make a case that they do.