The likelihood is that the great majority of the founding fathers gave the term "natural born citizen" very little thought at all. When the Constitution was crafted, there were big issues at stake. What should be the status of slavery? How can small states be protected from political abuse by larger, wealthier states? It was compromises on these huge issues that made the Constitution possible. They spent less time than the good folks at Free Republic thinking about the precise meaning of terms like "natural born citizen" or "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Moreover, if we are to trust Justice Scalia, the important question is not how the intellectual elite of that day defined these terms; instead, the important question is what those terms meant to ordinary citizens:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Back in those early days, how many ordinary citizens paid any attention to Vattel's theories? How many read "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in English? How many read it in its original language? How many had ever heard of Vattel? How many thought it would be practical to try to determine with certainty the identity and citizenship of biological fathers more than 35 years after a birth?
The entire Vattel birther pathology is grounded in elitism. Ordinary citizens now and ordinary citizens at the time of our founding know/knew nothing about Vattel or 18th century Swiss "natural law" philosophies. But, these Vattel fans manifest nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens. They view them as ignorant (meaning they don't read translations of Vattel) and certainly not to be trusted to judge for themselves the qualifications of presidential candidates because there is no assurance that they will first read and fully understand translations of Vattel to discover the one and only true meaning of "natural born citizen."
So, to hell with ordinary citizens! What we'll look for instead is a few elitist lawyers/politicians at the time of our founding who may have had a copy of Vattel's work in their libraries. That's the best we can do.
And, yet, after four long years, they continue to wonder: Why won't the Supreme Court attempt to intervene to tell the world that Obama really isn't the president? He's NOT the president. It just can't be!!!
They're going to keep on feeling that way until it soon won't even matter anymore.
I agree.
When the Constitution was crafted, there were big issues at stake. What should be the status of slavery? How can small states be protected from political abuse by larger, wealthier states? It was compromises on these huge issues that made the Constitution possible. They spent less time than the good folks at Free Republic thinking about the precise meaning of terms like "natural born citizen" or "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Absolutely.
Moreover, if we are to trust Justice Scalia, the important question is not how the intellectual elite of that day defined these terms; instead, the important question is what those terms meant to ordinary citizens:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Absolutely insightful. Back in those early days, how many ordinary citizens paid any attention to Vattel's theories? How many read "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in English? How many read it in its original language? How many had ever heard of Vattel? How many thought it would be practical to try to determine with certainty the identity and citizenship of biological fathers more than 35 years after a birth?
None; none; zero; very few; and practically nobody.
The entire Vattel birther pathology is grounded in elitism. Ordinary citizens now and ordinary citizens at the time of our founding know/knew nothing about Vattel or 18th century Swiss "natural law" philosophies. But, these Vattel fans manifest nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens. They view them as ignorant (meaning they don't read translations of Vattel) and certainly not to be trusted to judge for themselves the qualifications of presidential candidates because there is no assurance that they will first read and fully understand translations of Vattel to discover the one and only true meaning of "natural born citizen."
So, to hell with ordinary citizens! What we'll look for instead is a few elitist lawyers/politicians at the time of our founding who may have had a copy of Vattel's work in their libraries. That's the best we can do.
And, yet, after four long years, they continue to wonder: Why won't the Supreme Court attempt to intervene to tell the world that Obama really isn't the president? He's NOT the president. It just can't be!!!
So well said, it bore repeating.