Replies

Yes, I know where YOU get it - a book where the phrase first appeared in print AFTER the Constitution was written.

Don’t you feel a bit stupid saying the Constitution is based on a phrase found in a book AFTER the Constitution?

And yes, the courts HAVE said the definition must be found elsewhere, so they have consistently used English common law and the accepted meaning of the equivalent phrase ‘natural born subject’ - but that leads to a very different conclusion than you want, doesn’t it?

...a book where the phrase first appeared in print AFTER the Constitution was written.
You're hanging your hat on when a book was translated into English as if none of the Founding Fathers read or spoke French?

...so they have consistently used English common law and the accepted meaning of the equivalent phrase ‘natural born subject’...
Got link?
How about this one...
Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen
"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".

“the Law of Nations,” was written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.

How is that after the Constitution?