Me thinks you doth protest too much, especially against those on the same side of the argument. The term “natural born” appeared in English law well before Vattel & well before feudal law that arose after the Norman Conquest. The tern “natural born” was written in text books & commentaries on natural law that were embedded into the minds of the framers well before Vattel’s 1st edition of the Law of Nations in 1758. Where do you think the English originally got it from? Vattel was important because his works affirmed the century's old doctrine of the natural law nations that began with Adam & Eve.
Again, Vattel was important because his works are on the laws of nations according to natural law. At the declaration, each state became a quote “sovereign NATION state”, each with the right to make their own laws, including those of citizenship as at that time there was NO federal citizenship. The states determined immigration based on the needs of their own sovereign state & thus Vattel was brought in. His works were the epitome of the subject, even by Brits who cited Vattel in their records of “The House of Commons”, British Parliament, especially during the wars they. Vattel took natural law, written by many earlier philosophers on the subject and brought it together in one neat little set of works that also included the law of nations. This had never been done before. AND if you actually go to Congressional records, you will find that Pufenfdorf, Locke & Grotius are more widely used when speaking of natural rights of citizens and who those citizens are.
John Adams:
A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company, the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke...You and I, my dear friend, have been sent into fife, at a lime when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to have lived. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government more than of air, soil or climate, for themselves or their children.
You can have all the opinions you want. Just don’t make them at my expense.
Let me say right away that Mr. Apuzzo has good reason to be a little "sensitive" after what Jedi Pauly wrote.
Now, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't have a problem separating the wheat from the chaff.
I think there were many good ideas in Pauly's article.
Unfortunately, it could have been a far better article without him trying to denigrate those on the front line of battle -- such as, Mr. Apuzzo.
Again, bringing up Mr. Apuzzo (and the other "birther" lawyers)detracted -- unfortunately, I think -- from some of the good points that he made.
In retrospect, I wonder if I did good by posting the article at all.
I certainly did not intend to be part of demeaning Mr. Apuzzo: who has demonstrated, even with just a few posts on this forum, a wonderful grasp of the constitution and the history of our republic.
There is a way to criticize in a constructive and tactful way.
There is a way to disagree, without being disagreeable.
I do not know what Mr. Apuzzo has done to be treated in such a dismissive and disrespectful manner -- and I don't like it!
As I said, Mr. Apuzzo is on the front line of battle here.
There are also thousands of us behind the scenes.
But whether we are at the front, or at the back of the battle, we are ALL on the same team... thus we should be heartening, not disparaging, Mr. Apuzzo.
Again, Mr. Apuzzo has good reason to be a little sensitive after what Jedi Pauly -- unnecessarily in my opinion -- wrote.
In fact, I think he has shown a commendable restraint.
STE=Q