I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
NOTE: There's a 'do you agree to the terms of the website' when you get there. Just click through. Its one of the best resources for letters I've found.
-----
rather than they wrote it that way themselves and Tucker, talking about it later, just grabbed the analogy to explain it?
He was helping them write it and communicated regularly with members of Congress about the newly emerging Republic. A search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html
for the exact phrase St. George Tucker, brings up ONE HUNDRED returns. Read the letters for yourself.
I would, however, like to say, that despite several of the letters talking about slaves, Tucker was a staunch abolitionist.
-----
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?
Yes. The Right of Inheretence concerning the 'excepting if the mother or father were aliens' part of the in the English law posted earlier in the discussion.
-----
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."
Really?
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
-----
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.
Well, except my part of the family is just a decade short of being here for 400 years, and I pretty certain I've got a grip on the citizenship shell game., but I do sincerely thank you for your concern.
-----
But for the whole mishmosh of theories about why Obama's not eligible, "birther" is the only word I can think of.
Then since you are an exceptional case, I will never take offense of your using it.
;-)
Yes. The Right of Inheretence concerning the 'excepting if the mother or father were aliens' part of the in the English law posted earlier in the discussion.
The phrase was "notwithstanding their Father or Mother were Aliens." "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of the fact that," not "excepting if." The law (apparently) was to remedy a situation that prevented natural-born subjects from inheriting through non-natural-born parents. It seems a stretch to use that situation to say that American citizens should only be able to inherit their presidential ability through citizen parents--especially when that was regarded as a situation to be remedied.
In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
You're not really contending that Wilson is referring to Vattel's book in that quote, rather than to the generic term, are you?
Well, except my part of the family is just a decade short of being here for 400 years, and I pretty certain I've got a grip on the citizenship shell game.
And if one of your daughters were to marry a foreigner who declined to become an American citizen? (It happens.) I understand that you think their children would not be eligible for the presidency, but are you really happy with the idea that they wouldn't be American citizens at all?