Replies

"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.

You thus admit that Blackstone did not use the specific phrase at issue, which is "natural born citizen." A natural born "subject" of the king in England is not the same as the phrase actually chosen. Schneider v. Rusk as quoted in Craig plainly says that "citizenship" does not and cannot alter the meaning of the consciously chosen phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Fuller's dissent was about citizenship and the common law. Neither the dissent nor the majority opinions in Wong Kim Ark dealt with the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither do you. Yuo keep avoiding the actual issue based on the surmise, which is not supported by the notes of those who were in the constitutional convention, that the framers were controlled by your ideas of what citizenship meant at common law. The Convention notes make clear that Vattel was among authors and influences who were continually discussed. Since the phrase used is not one from common law but is found in Vattel's "Law of Nations" it is more likely that John Marshall was correct and your surmises are what they are, unsupported speculation. Your entire argument is that 14th amendment concepts of citizenship as you divine them from the common law embrace the phrase actually chosen. It is not in my humble opinion, a valid argument. By the way Fuller's opinion, like many dissents, is highly regarded. Your surmises don't really have any support except in your own mind.