Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kleon

<>I’ve seen no reason to believe anyone reading the original French version (or English translations available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) would get “natural-born citizen” from Vattel’s Law of Nations.<>

Historian David Ramsay did, along with Vattel’s definition thereof in 1789:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/02/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

And Justice Waite in his Minor v Happersett identified “natural-born citizen” as a synonym for “native”, along with Vattel’s definition therof, as derived from common law when he wrote:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were <>natives, or natural-born citizens<>, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/


196 posted on 08/26/2010 5:47:06 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip
And Justice Waite in his Minor v Happersett identified “natural-born citizen” as a synonym for “native”,

Doesn't that imply that "natural-born citizen" means the same thing as "native citizen"?

222 posted on 08/26/2010 9:13:45 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson