Actually, Vattel (or the translation I see) uses the terms pretty interchangeably.
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.
It's not an operation of Vattel. Tucker was just analogizing our association of states to a kind of nation--a "federal republic"--described by Vattel. It doesn't mean the 10th exists because it follows some principle Vattel laid out.
Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right.
And yet "natural-born subjects" did not necessarily have a blood right to that status.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Tucker equates "natural born citizens" with "those born within the state." Doesn't that indicate that he thinks "natural born" status has to do with birthplace, not parentage? (And he even used the word "citizen," not "subject.")
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?
Reading birther threads here on FR. The "born in Kenya" arguments never carried a lot of weight, but the Constitutional questions were interesting, I thought. So I started reading and trying to figure out for myself what I thought, rather than relying on a bunch of other people's interpretations.
LOL! Actually, that's exactly what the words 'express recognition' means.
This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations;
-----
And yet "natural-born subjects" did not necessarily have a blood right to that status.
True - jus soli subjects of England had natural-born status because the King said they did.
------
Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Tucker equates "natural born citizens" with "those born within the state."
In order to born 'into' something, one must have some type of attachment to it first. It's why aliens had to take an oath of allegiance before they were allowed certain privileges. The oath created the 'tie'.
The concept of allegiance in this country is not a physical tie, it's a political one.
Thus aliens took a political oath to create a tie to the political state.
A natural born citizens political tie comes through their parents....they are born 'into' it by blood.
--------
Reading birther threads here on FR. The "born in Kenya" arguments never carried a lot of weight,
Doesn't matter where he was born. The Law of Nations says children take the citizenship of the father, remember?
1963 Kenyan Constitution
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Political attachments don't recognize physical boundaries.
-----
but the Constitutional questions were interesting, I thought. So I started reading and trying to figure out for myself what I thought, rather than relying on a bunch of other people's interpretations.
A reasonable purpose, do please tell me you didn't mean the 'birther' part as some kind of pejorative.
He does have letters there though.
[DRAT! Now I'll have to go back and count them. mutter, mutter]
LOL!