The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
The society canot perpetuate itself but by the children of citizens. These children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. The NATIVES are those born in the country of parents who were it citizens.
The U.S. Constitution was established by we the people for ourselves and our posterity ... IOW, for the citizens and the children of citizens. The natural status at birth is to follow the condition of the father, thus = natural-born citizen. natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Several years later, the Minor court unanimously affirms this concept and says that natural-born citizens are the same as natives: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
If we go by Marshall in basing such questions on the law of nations, and recognizing that children naturally follow the status of their fathers, then neither Obama nor Cruz nor anyone else not born to a citizen father is a natural-born citizen.
The claim that we ever used Vattel's idea of citizenship is complete and absolute bullcrap. One really can't even make a case for it without stretching something somewhere.
Like here.
The quote that Marshall uses talks about natural citizenship at birth:It does. Wow. He even uses the passage in Vattel that you're so attached to.
But he doesn't use it to say that we ever adopted Vattel's idea of citizenship. He uses it to explore Vattel's opinion of how we should treat an American living in England, while we are at war with England.
Oh! And he DOESN'T EVEN USE the edition of Vattel that mistranslates "indigenes" as "natural born citizens." So his discourse contains NO COMMENTARY ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP AT ALL.
And this is some of the BEST that birthers can come up with to support their crapola Constitutional theory.
The BEST, mind you.
A case that doesn't mention natural born citizenship at all (let alone give any kind of judgment about it), that uses the "right" passage from Vattel, but doesn't even use the translation that says "natural born citizens!"
It's bull****.
Now I'm not blaming you for coming up with it. It originated with somebody else.
But you've bought into the false theory, and promoted it to others.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base.
Applicable to WHAT subject?
The subject Chief Justice Marshall is talking about is MARITIME CAPTURES. The seizing of ships on the high sea in time of war.
OF COURSE the decisions applicable to that subject rest on the law of nations.
It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
And this is exactly what Marshall cites Vattel in reference to.
NOT WHO THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERS TO BE A CITIZEN, OR A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
ON WHAT POINT?
On the point of HOW WE REGARD AMERICAN CITIZENS RESIDING IN A COUNTRY WE ARE AT WAR WITH.
He then quotes the passage of Vattel. Vattel never used the term "natural born citizens" in this passage. He didn't even use the French equivalent. He said INDIGENES.
Natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
IF you accept Vattel's ideas of citizenship - WHICH NOT EVERYBODY AGREED WITH, EVEN AMONG THE WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS - then yes, "natives or indigenes" are those born in, blah, blah.
BUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE THE SAME THING NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS ALWAYS WERE, EXCEPT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND CITIZEN.
THAT'S WHY THEY USED THE TERM "NATURAL BORN," INSTEAD OF USING THE TERM "INDIGENE."
Several years later, the Minor court unanimously affirms this concept and says that natural-born citizens are the same as natives: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
BULL****. Minor says that those people were undoubtedly natural born citizens. They never said those without citizen parents weren't.
In fact, that quote was quoted by the Wong Court for the purpose of making the point that the Minor Court WASN'T committed to the idea that children of non-citizens were not born citizens.
If we go by Marshall in basing such questions on the law of nations, and recognizing that children naturally follow the status of their fathers, then neither Obama nor Cruz nor anyone else not born to a citizen father is a natural-born citizen.
No. You want to go by Chief Justice John Marshall?
Chief Justice John Marshall reviewed James Bayard's 1834 book, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. IN DETAIL.
Chief Justice Marshall corrected Bayard on one point: Congress, he said, didn't have to ask the States for permission to build post roads and military roads. They already had it.
Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."
And what else does Bayard say in his book?
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
This comment was made specifically in the context of Presidential eligibility. So Chief Justice John Marshall agreed completely that it only requires citizenship by birth to be a natural born citizen, and that children born US citizens overseas because they had US citizen parents were also natural born citizens and eligible to the Presidency.
We can therefore add Chief Justice John Marshall to the long, long list of genuine Justices and other legal authorities who refute the birther BS that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.
In fact, this theory is now shot so full of holes it's a wonder there's anyone who dares to pretend they give it the slightest bit of credibility.