"The fact you have discovered, that he used the correct phrase one time, is only proof that he was aware of the phrase, and that he chose NOT to use it in his often mis-cited sentence."
Exactly right! I've pointed that out in other conversations I've had in the past. Clearly, Vattel wasn't making the case for Natural Born lineage in his oft-cited sentence, else he most definitely would have used
sujets naturels, again!
I figure that fact--that little gold nugget--holds more weight in a conversation than being ignorant of it and going around falsely claiming Vattel "never" used the term
sujets naturels. You can send me a check or money order for that nugget, LOL!
“...That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born....”
Nope. They didn’t write that. The litmus test for a natural born citizen was identical to the litmus test for a natural born subject - birth under the Sovereign. NBC & NBS were used interchangeably by the ratifying legislatures for years before and after the Constitution. They are the same phrase, and it was one with an accepted legal meaning.
You're getting legalese on me. I'm not talking about a verbatim, word for word, dissection of the legal term Natural Born. I'm talking about the underlying reasoning behind the placement of requirements for the office of President. THAT is the litmus test I'm talking about, not the wording.
For the underlying reasoning, I've always gone to what Pinckney, one of the actual framers of the U.S. Constitution, said about it:
"They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible..."
Even the oft cited afterbirther, "Dr. Conspiracy," admits the underlying reasoning behind the Constitutional requirements is experience and attachment (note: NOT linking to him. Google it):
“Experience and attachment” was the “original intent” of the framers, according to one of them who “remembers it well.” It was not “super citizenship” or “purity of blood” or “perfect undivided loyalty” but simple “experience and attachment”.
As best my research shows, this is the only comment by a framer of the Constitution on natural born citizenship that has survived. [John Jay was not a delegate to the Convention. The closest Jay gives to a definition is "not a foreigner."]
Now, Dr. Conspiracy downplays it, saying that "loyalty" has nothing to do with it and it's just "attachment." However, what is "attachment" in the context of Pinckney's statement "attachment to the country" but one thing only, loyalty?
Apparently, Dr. Conspiracy can't read in context and should have consulted a dictionary or a thesaurus when he hit that word, "attachment":
From the dictionary:
at·tach·ment (-tchmnt)
n.
1. The act of attaching or the condition of being attached.
2. Something, such as a tie, band, or fastener, that attaches one thing to another.
3. A bond, as of affection or loyalty; fond regard.
[...]
From the Thesaurus:
Main Entry: attachment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: affection, high regard
Synonyms: affinity, amore, attraction, bond, case, crush, devotion, fidelity, fondness, friendship, hankering*, liking, love, loyalty, partiality, possessiveness, regard, shine*, tenderness, weakness, yen*
So, even though Dr. Conspiracy can't seem to find a dictionary, he admits that the underlying reasoning behind the qualifications for President is experience and "attachment" to our country, aka - LOYALTY to the United States of America!
Anyway, all that being said, you are correct in that, ultimately, it comes down to the Voters ensuring the loyalty of a Presidential candidate. However, I am of the opinion that when a candidate has a potential problem meeting the LETTER of the law, or, as in Mr. Cruz's case, in a well-known gray area concerning Natural Born and Birth Abroad, it is far better to be up front about it and let the voter chips fall where they may. Obama's biggest mistake, or greatest achievement, depending on how you look at it, was in trying to obfuscate the facts and dialog by belittling and ridiculing those who were genuinely concerned and just wanted reasonable answers to their questions of Obama's "attachments" to the United States, or some other country.
And, now, look where we are: We're at each other's throats over the meaning of what "is" is when it comes to Natural Born. It's truly sad, indeed.
Cheers!
Ooops!
Cr@p!
Must of clicked the “I have already previewed or do not wish to preview” box when I really meant to preview my comment so I could edit it and clean up my sloppy html code! LOL!
Sorry about that. Hopefully there aren’t too many stupid mistakes in there.
Cheers!
It was undoubtedly meant to help “ insure experience and attachment to the country”, but the means was an inadequate method. There was no way they could write a loyalty test into the Constitution, or ensure any future President cared about America. Ultimately, that job was left to the voters. Unhappily, modern voters don’t seem to care about America, or any of the principles that America stood upon - so they voted for Obama, and not just once, but twice.
“You can send me a check or money order for that nugget, LOL!”
Well...I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, but you do have my thanks. I will try to phrase things more correctly in the future.