Your posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle. Expatriation is the “key” as it does not exist in English feudal law that had only been in place a short time compared to the long history of England. It was a huge part of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s. While you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying. Those most distinguished Englishmen, one executed & the other escaped into exile, had much more to do with the actual revolution & why it happened as their works focus on natural law, while Vattel focused on the Law of Nations. Locke & Sidney are the seeds that sprouted the knowledge of true natural law as it originally existed in England well before feudal law was incorporated. So, while you focus on Vattel who was oh so important as the founders were dealing with 13 sovereign nation states, you neglect English history which is key to understanding why the founders even went looking for Vattel. They read Locke and Sidney as youth, they knew of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s & most importantly, they had been taught the heritage of their forefathers and of the days when England first began & wasn't under feudal law.
Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of both the Declaration & the Constitution, 2nd only to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution...
Date: 1791
English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems...
I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”
A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen...
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.
First you said, “you [meaning me] consistently have neglected the natural right of “expatriation” in your augments & writings.” I prove you wrong and you fail to admit it. In your effort to deflect attention away from your error, now you argue “[w]hile you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying.” You really do not give up do you.
Well, you say that my “posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle.” I do not see how my explanation of the expatriation doctrine got lost anywhere. It is clearly written there and anyone could have read it. But you refuse to admit that you did not and rather just continue with more baseless attacks against me.
Also, you complain my posts are long and now you also complain that I did not speak about Locke and Sidney. So you wished that my post were longer if you also want me to write on those historical figures. So which way do you want it?
You speak about Justice Wilson who is very important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You snidely (”oh so important”) attempt to undercut the importance of Vattel and rather put forward a theory that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” may be found in English history and Locke and Sidney who focused on natural law rather than Vattel who focused on the law of nations. You fail to show any connection between English history and Locke and Sidney and a “natural born Citizen.” You also fail to realize that both Jefferson and Wilson, among the many Founders and Framers, looked to Vattel as the master on explaining natural law and the law of nations which they believed had a divine origin and was therefore immutable and binding. And it was in Vattel’s Law of Nations Section 212 that he defined what a “natural born citizen” (”naturels, ou indigenes” in French which we know is equivalent to “natural born citizens” or “natives” or “indigenes” in English) is.
You also fail to realize that natural law and the law of nations existed well before English history and Locke and Sidney. The law of nations developed from jus gentium which was a Roman concept. Roman lawyers came to believe that jus gentium, since it was based on universal principles and was common among nations, was the lost law of nature. Cicero, a very famous Roman lawyer and orator, who was one of the Founders and Framers (especially Jefferson and Wilson) favorite, wrote extensively on natural law. I could go on at length on this point but it is not necessary for my purpose here.
Again, I do not know what your and Jedi’s motive is regarding why you feel compelled to prove me wrong in any way that you can. Again, I do not know who you or Jedi are and would recommend that if either of you have something that you want to share with the public or me on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” just do it without trying to prove that you know this subject better than me.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.