Well, several things about Vattel:
• He says in the Preliminaries to the book that “the Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting *between nations or states*, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.” The emphasis is mine, to point out that the law of nations has to do with the interactions between nations, not the rules of what happens within a nation—like who’s eligible to be president.
• When Vattel does discuss internal issues, there’s no reason to think we follow him slavishly. For example, he proposes that “since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.” Obviously, we didn’t adopt that—there’s a lot else in there that most people on this board would find objectionable.
• He didn’t write “natives, or natural-born citizens,” of course, he wrote “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Just because some (but not all) translators later decided that the established English expression “natural-born citizen” was a good way to render “indigenes” doesn’t mean the Framers had that definition in mind.
• “Children” have “parents.” I’ve always thought the insistence that both parents be citizens based on his use of the plural was a really weak argument. If you’re talking about a nation’s children, you’re going to refer to their parents, even if you only mean one parent per child. Even later in that same quote, he says children follow the condition of their fathers—does that mean both fathers have to be citizens for a child to be NBC?
> That’s why, in my most honest opinion that there is only one way to
> acquire natural-born citizenship
> You must inherit it from your parents.
And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.
Silly Founders.
From the first legal treatise written after Ratification:
And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements."[57]
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
George Tucker
-----
He didn’t write “natives, or natural-born citizens,” of course, he wrote “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Just because some (but not all) translators later decided that the established English expression “natural-born citizen” was a good way to render “indigenes” doesn’t mean the Framers had that definition in mind.
A great many of the Founders were fluent in French as all well-educated men were in those days.
As they would need no 'translation', I fail to see the purpose of the comment.
-----
“Children” have “parents.” I’ve always thought the insistence that both parents be citizens based on his use of the plural was a really weak argument.
Really? So how many parents do you think it takes to make a child?
------
And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.
Please source the English law in question.
----
Look, I would very much like to have a discussion, but only with someone who wants to take an honest look at the evidence.
Your post seems quite indicative of someone who has already made up their mind.
If this is the case, please do have the courtesy and human decency to tell me so know as I'm sure we could both probably find a more productive use of our time.
Thank you.
From Vattel, Book III.
In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights.
As referenced here.
"The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and The Supreme Court"
And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.
For decades, I have been a pro-Gun activist and for Decades, I had wondered how in the world anyone could fail to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. I had, for years, fought with morons who kept telling me it meant the National Guard had a right to carry guns. That this interpretation was utterly ridiculous was simply not apparent to many many people.
People used to whine, "Why didn't the founders make it clearer?" To which I always replied, "The meaning was perfectly clear and non controversial in 1789. It needed to be made no clearer. They just never thought people would be so stupid as to interpret it differently."
Finally, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and the Chicago v McDonald Decision, Made it clearer to the fools among us what was very clear to everyone in 1789, but even at that, there existed four utter sh*theads on the Supreme Court who should never have been allowed up there. Breyer,Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. These were the dissenters.
It is as a result of these four, and various other past decisions by various Supreme Courts, that I simply do not regard the Supreme Court's opinion as being proof of anything other than the fact that politics decides what is accepted as true, whether it be true or not.
To answer your question, I believe they thought it was clear enough. After all, at that point in History, Vattel was very popular. It was even quoted in the notes on the convention, and several State Ratifying conventions.
When Khruschev and the Soviets built the Berlin Wall to keep East German workers from moving to or working in West Germany, he could rely upon Vattel's opinion that one of the Principle Objects of Government is to prevent, by force if necessary, the emigration of workers that the State finds useful:
"Those workmen that are useful ought to be retained in the state; to succeed in retaining them, the public authority has certainly a right to use constraint if necessary. Every citizen owes his personal service to his country; and a mechanic, in particular, who has been reared, educated, in its bosom, cannot lawfully leave it, and carry to a foreign land that industry which he acquired at home, unless his country has no occasion for him, or he cannot there obtain the just fruit of his labor and abilities. Employment must then be procured for him; and if while able to obtain a decent livelihood in his own country, he would without reason abandon it, the state has a right to detain him."
Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natiural Law Book 1, Chapter 6, § 74
Fidel Castro, too, agrees with Vattel's view on the right of the State to hold workers captive if it is of benefit to the State.
Vattel devotees, including those who fancy themselves connoisseurs of the various flavors and gradations of citizenship, might themselves get indigestion from some of Vattel's finest delicacies. The Vattel fetish is for genuine crackpots.