Replies

“If everyone agreed with everyone else on all points, we wouldn’t need a Constitution”

You hit the nail on the head. The disagreements in 1787 were as great then as they are today.

And it is why you can have William Rawle say,

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Like Dr. Ramsay, William Rawle was also in a good position to know the minds of the Framers.

Rawle was 17 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Unlike David Ramsay, who was ten years his senior, he did not attend the Constitutional Convention. As authorities on the thinking of those who wrote the Constitution, the two are far from equal.

Even Charles Dumas, who published copies of Vattel's Law of Nations, with his own notes included specifically for the American Cause, in 1775, has a much better claim as an authority on such matters than does William Rawle. Dumas shared a home with both John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. The odds are very good that Mr. Dumas had explicit conversations on the subject of Vattel and his writings with both John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

And it is why you can have William Rawle say,

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Like Dr. Ramsay, William Rawle was also in a good position to know the minds of the Framers.

Well, he would meet with them in the tavern in the evening when they would take a break from the convention if I recall properly, but he wasn't a delegate to the constitutional convention.

But whatever they told him, we now know he was deliberately misleading people on this point because we found that book from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judges stating flat out that Citizenship is derived from Vattel and Natural Law, not English common law.

The Pennsylvania supreme court also rejected his citizenship argument UNANIMOUSLY, in the case of Negress Flora v Joseph Grainsberry. (If I spelled it right.)

So yeah, Rawle might have known the truth, but he chose not to convey it to others in his book.

And do you know why? I think I figured it out. See if you can figure out why Rawle deliberately misled people on this specific point.