Replies

Just to demonstrate to others how much of an twit you are, I am going to respond to you on a point by point basis. It is indeed going to be like writing a book because you put so much ignorance and stupidity into every single sentence you write, and it requires a lot of time and effort to refute each point.

I have read Vattel in French.

So have a lot of people. Irrelevant.

You have an OPINION. It is not fact, and most disagree with it.

Supplication to the opinion of the masses is a fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum." Intelligent people know that something is not true just because large numbers of people believe it to be true. Truth is not decided by consensus.

And now I must tackle your subsequent massive run on sentence which contains numerous faults and fallacies.

In order to accept your opinion one must agree that Vattel meant BOTH parents,

I could write an essay on this topic alone. Your first mistake is assuming Vattel is the only source for this concept or understanding. You are so ignorant of history that I have to explain it from the ground up, from the Latin "Patria" means land of my Father" and Greek all the way to the present. Suffice it to say, the two parent aspect was a consequence of the need to have the father be a citizen, because the mother was automatically of the same citizenship as the father. This was originally the common law, but later codified by Congress. This was not changed until the Cable act of 1922, And further strengthened by the Women's citizenship act of 1934.

And that rebuttal of your point only touched the surface. I could keep citing documents and history further, but I have to limit my responses if I am ever to finish this message.

which is not necessarily true since he believed rights came from the father,

And yet he said "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.". Note the plural form of the word "Parent" and the word "citizen".

you must also believe that this was the common understanding at time of writing of the Constitution and that the common law in practice among the states drew more from Vattel than England,

Geeze, I could write an essay on this part too! First of all, to assume that the Founders simply copied everything about English law is just wrong. The Founders copied the basic framework and rejected many of the principles such as eternal allegiance to the crown and the establishment of the Church of England.

James Madison himself flatly states that we did not adopt wholesale the principles of the English Common law.

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”

The principles which outlined our declaration of Independence were completely contrary to English law, but dovetail neatly with the Principles outlined by Vattel.

Given that it was against the very law of English Subjectship to break away from the King, do you think we felt obliged to adhered to it in it's other particulars?

and you must believe that such definition has remained unchanged through time.

The meaning of constitutional terms does not change. If the words are permitted to be redefined, then they will cease to have any meaning or purpose even. The document then becomes useless. Congress has no power to re-define constitutional terms, and neither do the courts. Only a constitutional amendment can change constitutional law.

In essence, in your argument, the 14th amendment creates a second class of citizen which is native born but not natural born which is kind of ironic considering Vattel himself uses the word native, not the word natural.

Again, you have created a morass of inaccurate and conflicting concepts which have to be unwound like a tangled fishing line. This is why I absolutely HATE discussing anything at all with you.

Take for example, this piece you wrote: "the 14th amendment creates a second class of citizen...". It is intended to evoke revulsion because of the historical association of the term "second class citizen" with the ugly period in civil rights history when blacks were treated unequally in all dealings with the government. It is a loaded term, used only for the purpose of imputing a disrespect to the distinction being drawn between "citizen" and "natural citizen", though they share equally in all rights but one. (Even England requires Jus Sanguinus for their Executive.)

The fact remains that citizens come in many different "classes" or types, (depending on how you wish to illustrate it) none of which has any impact on their rights and privileges. We have male citizens, we have female citizens, we have citizens who are under 35 (also prohibited from being president) and we have citizens over 35. We have citizens that haven't lived in the nation for the required 14 years, and we have those who have. This "second class citizen" argument is just a obfuscatory dodge.

The next aspect of your 14th amendment argument which I intend to address is the fact that the 14th amendment omits using the term "natural born" to describe the type of citizen created by it. Had they intended for it to repeal article II, it would have explicitly used the term "natural born". As it did not, it is clear that they had no intention of repealing article II. As a matter of fact, the Supreme court subsequently said that the 14th amendment does not define who is a "natural born citizen."

Seven years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the supreme court said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

This is an implicit statement that rejects any 14th amendment basis for natural citizenship. It is a tacit acknowledgment that the 14th amendment makes no one a natural born citizen.

Now to your next point: "which is native born but not natural born which is kind of ironic considering Vattel himself uses the word native, not the word natural."

In 1787, and thereafter for many years, the term "native" and the term "natural" meant virtually the same thing. For someone to be "just visiting" a nation which was several thousand miles away from their home, long enough to have a child, was exceedingly rare. The extreme majority of people who were "native born" were also born to parents who had come here to stay. As a matter of fact, the Supreme court explicitly states that these words mean essentially the same thing as used during that time period.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

And now that I am attempting to respond to the rest of your message I am finding it gone. I am suspecting you have been zotted, which will suit me just fine.

One can only hope.

I happen to agree with you based on everything I've read thus far, and I find your posts on the subject helpful. Both of my daughters were born before their Mom became naturalized. Now, many would argue that because she had a green card, that she had the "intention" to become and ultimately became a citizen, and therefore my girls are NBC. I can't find that twist anywhere in law. I happen to believe they are, of course, citizens, just certainly not with the distinction of Natural Born citizens. They can travel back to my wife's birth country tomorrow, and have passports issued to them within weeks (or months, things are slow there). To many it's a distinction without a difference. To me, the difference is quite simple; they would not be eligible to be POTUS. And that's the ONLY difference.

I've had this conversation with my lib brother, and he's taken to prove me incorrect while fantasizing my eldest daughter becoming President in 30 years, if only not for big ole meany ME misleading her and her sister to believe their whole lives that it can't (legally) happen based upon what the Constitution provides. He recently pointed me to the following pair of articles at Red State, which I have searched for but not found here on FR. Of course, that the source is "conservative" it is supposed to make me an immediate believer, and apologizer to those that would toss the constitution into the trash at first opportunity. I would love to see some Freeper debate on these articles. But I will settle for your opinion if you'd be interested in reviewing them.

On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part I: From Alexander Hamilton to Lynch v. Clarke By: Jake (Diary)

On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part II: From William Learned Marcy to Wong Kim Ark By: Jake (Diary)

Thanks for any comments. btw: This is the very first time that I've managed to post links on FR that actually work.