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.
So you think the Framers wrote the 10th because Vattel said that's the way our republic should be organized, rather than they wrote it that way themselves and Tucker, talking about it later, just grabbed the analogy to explain it? I don't think I agree, if so.
jus soli subjects of England had natural-born status because the King said they did.
But earlier you said "[Tucker] 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." So are you saying that some natural-born subjects were "really" natural born by blood, but others were only "proclaimed" natural born? Was this a functional distinction in any way?
Doesn't matter where he was born. The Law of Nations says children take the citizenship of the father, remember?
Vattel's Law of Nations wasn't a rule book, it was a philosophical treatise on the "Principles Of The Law Of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs Of Nations And Sovereigns." Who cares what it says about citizenship? This is our country, we can make our own rules. Besides, as a Mama, I'd expect you to be a little unhappy with the idea that your kids could inherit their father's citizenship but not yours.
do please tell me you didn't mean the 'birther' part as some kind of pejorative.
I confess I've used it that way, but in this case, no. I've tried to come up with a different term, and on threads like these, dealing with just the Constitutional questions, I sometimes say "strict eligibility." But for the whole mishmosh of theories about why Obama's not eligible, "birther" is the only word I can think of.