General search:
https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=%22natural+born+citizens%22&s=1111211111&sa=&r=1&sr=
The document of interest:
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr=
> The document of interest:
> https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr=
thanks. i agree (if that is what you are implying) that it is not a totally ironclad argument for or against anything. it just uses the two terms in parallel, suggestively.
i looked up Vattel’s term indigene. I saw that it is apparently an English term as well, meaning someone who is native to a country. what is interesting at least to me is that the FFs deliberately chose not to use the (English word, and also presumably direct translation) indigene when they had the chance to do so in the constitution. This implies to me that they (the FFs) instead chose to signal adoption of the English common law concept of “natural born subject” in its adjectival phrase form (”natural born”), and tacked it onto their usage of “citizen” as a modifier, as is allowed by the English language. Yes, they could have paused and defined the larger phrase. No, they did not pause and define the larger phrase. Up until 1776, they were living under colonial forms of English common law, so they all were familiar (or at least they all should have been familiar) with the adjectival phrase “natural born.” The 1797 Vattel English translation sounds to my coarse ears to the extent that indigene is congruent with natural born citizen, OK, and otherwise, as only so much revisionist backfill.
Hmmm, maybe this is why, in recent history, the USSC has chosen to duck the issue.
Disclaimer: I prefer not to stay in Holiday Hotels.
Adams used the two terms in a draft commerce treaty with England in 1785.
Of course since it requires two citizen parents there were no natural born citizens in 1783 and 1785 except for those born after July 4th, 1776.