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

To: null and void

I have read the evidence and it supports the idea that someone who is born a citizen is a “Natural Born Citizen”. There isn’t an extra layer to reach that mythical status.

And yes, Vattel was widely known in the time of the writing of the Constitution.

But so was English Common Law.

And English Common Law was the basis of our law, except where specified.

If the writers of the Constitution wanted to use Vattel as the basis for who was eligible to be President, they would have spelled it out, or at least the early courts would have supported it. They didn’t. They supported English Common Law.


31 posted on 01/27/2012 11:29:27 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
I have read the evidence and it supports the idea that someone who is born a citizen is a “Natural Born Citizen”. There isn’t an extra layer to reach that mythical status. And yes, Vattel was widely known in the time of the writing of the Constitution. But so was English Common Law. And English Common Law was the basis of our law, except where specified. If the writers of the Constitution wanted to use Vattel as the basis for who was eligible to be President, they would have spelled it out, or at least the early courts would have supported it. They didn’t. They supported English Common Law.

Why then did the Framers of the Constitution reject Alexander Hamiliton's proposed presidential eligibility language of "born a Citizen" for John Jay's stricter "natural born Citizen"?

One of the Founders, David Ramsay, defined natural born Citizen in 1789:

The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.

52 posted on 01/27/2012 12:00:04 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“If the writers of the Constitution wanted to use Vattel as the basis for who was eligible to be President, they would have spelled it out, or at least the early courts would have supported it. They didn’t. They supported English Common Law.”

Oh no no no they did not! The framers DELIBERATELY rejected English Common law, because English common law is based in divine sources, and bestowed by God. The framers wanted to keep religion OUT of our constitution, so as to free the nation from a religious government which would dictate the national religion. Otherwise we would be SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS. The English form of government derived their authority from GOD, not MAN. We derive OURs from MAN.

English Common law has similarities to what is referred to as US Common law, but in reality, there IS NO US Common law. Our laws were created with the Constitution, which in many areas deliberately rejected English Common Law. You are using a Straw Man argument.

Vattel wasn’t writing law, he was describing the common denominators that exist for ALL nations as a consequence of the existence of Nations! Universally, the WORLD in Vattel’s day referred to these common denominators the Laws of Nations, because they ALL have the same basis. It is a consequence.


56 posted on 01/27/2012 12:04:55 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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