Um. The link I’ve been giving says its the 1758 edition. You also forget most of the Founders WERE fluent in French. Are you saying they did a poor job of translation?
I’m sure the framers spoke French - certainly much better than I can but the only two words pertaining to citizenship in Vattel’s paragraph are “naturels” and “indigenes.” Nowhere can be found in the French version the words “Citoyen né naturel” which translated would be NBC. The rest of the paragraph speaks of requiring a parent citizen.
If the Founding Fathers had meant Vattel’s meaning when they required NBC for Presidential eligibility, then logically, one would expect them to have used Vattel’s terminology — either “naturel,” or — even better,“indigene,” which is a recognized word in English as well as in French.
Instead they went with Natural Born Citizen - a phrase well known to everyone for the past 400 years. The framers conscienciously went with the “of the soil” interpretation without adding “parental citizenship required. In other words instead of going with “Citoyen né naturel” which means Natural Born Citizen they went with the traditional English version of citizenship.
As you say, The federal government had the authority to decide who was or was not a natural born citizen, and they went with the English, soil only required.
You say: That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citzenship to be the same thing.
I say jus soli ONLY which was the 400 year tradition that was written that way in every colony’s charter or constitution. This is what the people knew.
FINALLY and I’m done: Conservatives have long held that under strict construction you should not read into a law or into the Constitution something that it does not say….that is the province of Liberals. I fear that quite a few so-called conservatives are joining the ranks of Liberals with a desire to change the meaning of parts of the Constitution; they wish to add to it what wasn’t meant by the framers. If the framers meant to they would have written for presidential qualifications: NBC with citizen parents. They left off those last three words for a reason and on purpose. As far as I’m concerned and apparently the court system agrees, there are only two categories of citizen: 1 NBC and 2 Naturalized. NBC can run for Pres, Naturalized citizens cannot. It is that simple. If OBUMMER was born in HI then he is a NBC. What we have to prove is he was born in Kenya and forged his BC, or better yet, just vote the bum out November.
Consider this. If the qualification for President did require one to have citizen parents, then they would have to produce their parents BC’s as evidence and that has NEVER been done.
Have a good evening.
Your repeatedly fixate on a single interpretation of single word of Vattel's while completely ignoring the definition.
But, as you pointed out in previous posts, the Founders ALSO used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was completed years before the Constitution was even written:
BOOK I. / CHAPTER THE TENTH
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES.
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Vattels' definition has the same definition as Blackstones. Whether the word is native, indigenes, indigenous or natural born subject or natural born citizen, the concept was the same ...the country of the fathers was the country of the children.
Contrary to the popular belief, the 14th Amendment granted NO jus soli citizenship, and the criteria for inherited, natural born citizenship was still being acknowledged in 1866:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
To try to say the Founders actually meant jus soli, or soil-based citizenship based on a modern day interpretation of a single word is ludicrous.
It wasn't until Wong Kim Ark that the concept of jus soli citizenship ever even came up, and even as unconstitutional as THAT finding was, the judge STILL differentiated between soil-based and blood-based citizenship.
------
I do find it odd the slip of paper you show not only uses French words in an English translation, but is a piss-poor job of typesetting. Unusual for craftsmanship of the age as books were quite precious.
You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they're reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.
Do please provide a link....that isn't a foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti birther' site.
---------
You say: That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citizenship to be the same thing.
And do not EVER.....EVER twist my words to say something I never said again!