Actually, he's talking about our nation as a federation of states, so he really is talking about the relation between nations. Anyway, like I said, if you want to give more weight to Tucker's quoting of Vattel on how nations get formed than to a direct quote from Vattel on what the law of nations covers, that's up to you. Seems like a reach to me.
Okay, but what about the fact that by choosing the citizenship of ONE parent, you deny the very existence of the other? No one has just ONE parent. I don't see why it would have occurred to them to rob a child of his/her foreign inheritances just because one parent was American.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Why would they have used a term other than one they were familiar with.
Because it's misleading! Because it implies that parentage isn't important, whereas according to you it's all-important! We agree that they were smart men who knew what they were about, yet you argue that they used language with a familiar meaning that was directly the opposite of what they meant. I just don't think they would have been that clumsy or shortsighted.
Thanks for the reference to Tucker's commentary. But I see that he's discussing denization and naturalization as two options for how to handle "alien friends," as distinct from natural-born citizens. And, in fact, regarding the latter, he says something that I think is damaging to your case:
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.Another refining "or," saying that "natural-born citizens" and "those born within the state" are a single concept.
There are two sides to this argument. One side maintains that as a safeguard to the Republic, the Framers intended—and in fact did—bar persons w deep & abiding foreign allegiances from seeking the WH. The other side says the Framers were fine w turning the country over to a person w irrevocable foreign allegiances [i.e.: foreign allegiances via birth].
Here’s the deal. For the first time in US history, the electorate, give or take a heaping portion of voter fraud, put a person w foreign allegiances in the WH. Now that individual has a known record: namely, he has a full term behind him & a good start on his second. So it is immanently possible to look at what he’s done & draw conclusions.
What I am asking you both is this. Cite a list of all the things Obama has done which prove that the magic dirt indeed worked in his case. That is, that the dirt trumped blood, and produced a citizen of the type the Framers had in mind.
This is not a complicated question. Just jot out a list of Obama deeds & accomplishments that, in your minds, underscore the wisdom of the Framers in opening the highest office of the land to persons w innate foreign allegiances.
I know that both of you will dodge this question somehow. Obama has in fact acted w vicious anti-American motives from the beginning. He has engaged in a relentless quest to undermine & destroy the country from the get go. This was entirely predictable. It is THE risk entailed in putting persons w irrevocable foreign allegiances in the WH. It is precisely what the Framers sought to spare us.
Yet you two argue otherwise. So put your $ where your mouth is and illustrate via his actual record how the country has nothing to fear from a POTUS w foreign allegiances. You can’t do it because we have EVERYTHING to fear from such a person, but go ahead anyway. Try to dodge away from the fatal disaster that your misinterpretation of the Framers has brought upon the country. Because either Obama is who the Framers wanted in the WH or he isn’t. You say he is; now prove it via his record.
But nations aren't States and States aren't nations.
It why why Washington DC isn't a 'state', but the District of Columbia.
It was my understanding your assertion was Vattel had no operation inside the US. I gave evidence via Tucker that the 10th Amendment, a part of our own Constitution, was a direct internal operation of Vattel.
Did I misunderstand the assertion?
-----
>>> MT - I don't see why it would have occurred to them to rob a child of his/her foreign inheritances just because one parent was American.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
In rebuttal of the 'only one parent matters' theology, or the continuing concept that somehow American citizenship can cancel out the citizenship of other nations.
[I think I actually flubbed up and grabbed a different part of that response than I intended, so I understand the confusion. Sorry]
----
I just don't think they would have been that clumsy or shortsighted.
In their defense, I don't think they were. Natural Law, or the Laws of Nature were well known to the Founders. Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right. It is how Kings inherent thrones and children inherit property.
The only difference between these 2 phrases is the last words...subject and citizen.
Here we have no King. WE are sovereign...we are our own Kings.......each and everyone of us.
It's why the Founders called us SOVERIGN CITIZENS.
It's why they were always taking about our Natural, or 'inalienable' Rights.
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
---
But I see that he's discussing denization and naturalization as two options for how to handle "alien friends," as distinct from natural-born citizens.
That's right, because only the Nature of ones birth can make one natural born.
Let me try it this way-
In Tuckers commentary he explained the division of power in England - how a King could make a denizen, yet only Parliament could make a naturalized citizen.
He never mentioned how the King could MAKE a natural born citizen, because even a King can't do that. A King can proclaim someone to BE natural-born, and insist they are treated AS natural-born......but even a King cannot instill in someone a blood Right they never possessed. That blood tie CAN only be there one way - through the blood.
This actually ties right into the next part of your post with the Naturalization Act where the States were passing the 'grandfather clauses' concerning the naturalization of People becoming citizens of the new federal government..... Rights, priviligies and immunities OF natural born citizens.
*
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
The naturalization acts proclaimed the people that were in the States at the time of the Revolution to 'have the Rights, privileges, and immunities' OF natural born citizens, so they were considered natural-born.
Unless and until they professed a tie, or 'allegiance' to the country, they remained aliens.
• [3rd paragraph from bottom]
In 1825, they passed a general and permanent statute, enabling aliens to take and hold lands in fee, and to sell, mortgage, and devise, but not demise or lease the same, equally, as if they were native citizens, provided the party had previously taken an oath that he was a resident in the United States, and intended always to reside therein, and to become a citizen thereof as soon as he could be naturalized, and that he had taken the incipient measures required by law for that purpose.
........ that every person of good character, who comes into the state, and settles, and takes an oath of allegiance to the same,
………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, ........
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
BTW - I actually meant to ask you in my earlier post:
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?