How Liberals Cloud the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

Canada Free Press ^ | Wednesday, June 1, 2011 | Dean C. Haskins

[Hotlanta Mike]

I don’t know how many times I’ve had this dialogue over the past couple of years, but it seems those who make it often pride themselves on their ability to type, regardless of the content of their thoughts. I participate in many discussions in which the Natural Born Citizen requirement of Article II is deceptively convoluted to the point that it is, supposedly, rendered meaningless. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is, if one is not armed with the facts, it might prove difficult for these flawed arguments to be refuted.

[Political Junkie Too]

What we don’t have, very oddly, is any indication they ever discussed Vattel or his notions.

I notice that you never posted on this thread - Vattel Cited: Records of the Federal Convention1787 (Natural Born Citizen) . What do you make of the references to Vattel, and the letters between the convention participants (regardless of whether the discussions made it to the Federalist Papers?

-PJ

[Mr Rogers]

So...you think someone had a written objection prepared, and just didn’t get the chance to do so? Because Dick Cheney is an Obamabot?

And that Congressman then remained silent forever?

Okaayyyyyyyy.....................

[Sherman Logan]

Okey, doke.

I looked up the five mentions of Vattel in the book you cite.

Here they are:

Page 334 “. In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers — Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty: that the propositions on the table were a system of slavery for 10 States”

Page 337 “The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle.”

“We must treat as free states with each other, upon the
same terms of equality that men originally formed themselves into societies. Vattel, Rutherford and Locke, are united in support of the position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.

Page 339 “The States are equal & must have equal Influence and equal votes — I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man — Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position”

That’s it. Not once quoted directly. Not once listed by himself as the prime authority behind the idea of the Constitution. Always part of a list of authors supporting the speaker’s position.

You may also note that every single mention is part of speeches by small state delegates supporting the idea that all states should have equal power under the Constitution, a remarkably silly idea. Not once is he cited on anything even vaguely to do with citizenship or qualifications for the executive power.

BTW, here’s the whole book, including in searchable ebook format.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1057&Itemid=99999999

[Sherman Logan]

Here’s an interesting list of the authors cited by the Founders, looking at all their writings as a whole.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

Vattel is #30 of 37 at .50%. This compares to Montesquieu at #2 (8.3%). Most notably, Blackstone, who held views on “natural born-ness” quite different from those of Vattel, came in at #3 (7.9%).

Vattel actually tied for last place with 12 other writers.

To me this is a very good indication Vattel was a quite minor influence on the Founders. He was not unknown, but was vastly outweighed in importance by Blackstone and others.

[Political Junkie Too]

Let's make sure that this discussion is framed properly.

You said "What we don’t have, very oddly, is any indication they ever discussed Vattel or his notions."

The issue here is not what they inferred or intended, but only that they referred to it or used it in the forming of the Constitution.

I attempted to provide references to where they did discuss it. I just posted a link to the thread. Here are follow-up posts that I thought were noteworthy.

Post 15:

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3
January 1, 1776 - May 15, 1776
Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin

My dear Friend, Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos’d is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply’d with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly.

I have put into Mr Adam’s Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus’d it, please to place it in your College Library.

(2)
I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin

RC (MHi).

Post 17:

Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.

In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.

Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.

Franklin stated, ``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.

Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''

Post 18:

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22 November 1, 1784 - November 6, 1785
Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering

Dear Sir, New York 15th Octr 1785
I am favoured with yours of the 11th, & have no Objection to your receiving the principal of my Debt, being £397.0.11/2,(1) provided I am secure for Costs in determining the Question of Interest-—;but should not this Stipulation be made previously to your receiving the Money, & be inserted in the Receipt for it?

I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel’s Law of Nations.

(2) Burlamaqui’s principles of natural & political Law 8 vo.

(3) Burlamaqui’s Law of Nations(4) if the Reputation of it, is equal to his other works. Government of the Germanic Body, 8 vo. Grotius on War & peace 8 vo.

(5) if it is a Translation of his Whole Work de Jure Belli & Pacis. St Evremond in French is not what I want.(6)

Post 25:

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 8
September 19, 1777 - January 31, 1778
James Lovell to John Adams
Dear Sir, York Janry. 1st. 1778. The year is rendered quite pleasing to me, in its beginning, by the arrival of your favour of the 6th of December, which assures me you were then in health with your lovely family.(1) May part of that happiness long continue! I say part, for I wish you may e’er long be in France, or at York Towne.

Your aid has been greatly wanted upon a most important transaction. We have had a call for your Stores of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel &c &c &c to support reason & common sense or to destroy both, just as your Honour & Da & Du & Dy should interpret the text.

I shall expect a long, long letter when the business which the bearer of this carries to General Heath shall have been communicated to you.(2) There are certain words which might be so used as to cause a vast expenditure of ink.

For instance, Men may dispute a year about “just Grounds,” and each remain of the opinion he first set out with. Calm posterity alone perhaps can make a faithful decision upon the weighty matters now in dispute between Great Britain and these States as to the verum decens et honestum with which they are conducted.

It seems to me that these posts show that the Founders sought out Vattel, and passed it around to the members of the convention. I'm not saying anything about the use they put it to, only that it appears that there is evidence that they used it.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Okay, I'm fine with that. But, minor or not, are you retracting your comment that there was no indication that they ever discussed Vattel or his notions.

-PJ

[Sherman Logan]

Sure. I obviously overstated my case somewhat.

But I didn't overstate it nearly as much as those claiming Vattel was the leading influence on the Founders and the primary source of the idea for our Constitution.

It seems quite obvious to me that Montesqueiu, Blackstone and many others were much more influential than Locke. It seems to me that if there was a commonly-understood meaning of NBC among the Founders, it was more likely to be that of Blackstone than Vattel.

YMMV

[Hotlanta Mike]

Because someone submitted a written objection does not mean that it was “accepted”.

Further, are you not familiar with the threats even civilians have received from this Chicago thug machine just for investigating the Fraud? Does Miss Tickly strike a chord?

[bushpilot1]

[Mr Rogers]

Yeah, right. Obamabot Dick Cheney refused to accept objections, and the objectors have kept strict silence about it. WOW!

[Hotlanta Mike]

SO you don’t believe Team Obama has silenced anyone?

[Hotlanta Mike]

SO you don’t believe Team Obama has silenced anyone?

[Hotlanta Mike]

Yeah, right. Obamabot Dick Cheney refused to accept objections, and the objectors have kept strict silence about it. WOW!

---

How are written objections presented to Cheney, directly hand-to-hand or through a staffer or assistant? If you tell me more it’s more likely through the Congressional mail service I’ll just laugh my ass off at you.

No, better yet probably any written objection by a House member had to be collected by the Speaker of the House and in the Senate by Harry Reid and then from their possession to be transferred to Dick Cheney.

What’s the likelihood that’s the way it may have gone down...

[combat_boots]

Attaboy

[Jeff Winston]

So here’s my explaination of a natural born citizen that even a 6 year old could understand (much thanks to Denzel Washington in the movie, Philadelphia). It’s called the 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream explaination: You have 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream. One scoop represents the citizen father, one scoop represents the citizen mother (of the same country) and the 3rd scoop represents the baby born IN the same country that the parents (plural) are citizens of. Mix all 3 scoops together and what flavor do you get? You get vanilla....naturally. If one of those scoops was a different flavor, say chocolate or strawberry, when you mixed them together you woud get something....unatural.

Here's mine:

Someone who is born a citizen.