I have pinged some other folks who may be interested in a new find regarding natural born citizenship (Chief Justice John Marshall's position, latter part of post). 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.
Nothing you quoted contradicts Vattel, but your deceitful and twisty little mind is going to claim it as being a support for your side, just like that French Janitor, and the Spanish Garbage collector, along with your English Lawyers. It's time to beat Jeffy boy down again.
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."
This statement requires three things to be true in order for it to support Jeff's theory.
1. That Chief Justice Marshall meticulously digested every single aspect of the book with the anal retentive obsession and specific attention to the detail of which Jeff is interested in, rather than just perused it.
2. That Chief Justice Marshall also interpreted that quote in the book in exactly the same anally retentive manner that Jeff wants him to.
3. That it Violates what Vattel said.
Let's look at it. That Number (1) is false is demonstrated by Jeff's very own quote of Marshall. "...I do not recollect ...". Had Marshall been as thorough as Jeff's desperate need requires, he would not have qualified the statement with an implication that he might have forgotten something.
That Number (2) is also false is demonstrated by the fact that if Justice Marshall follows the Vattel Definition of "natural citizen" then being "born a citizen" would be by that process, so there is no conflict.
That Number (3) is false is demonstrated by the Fact that Vattel doesn't disagree with Bayard's statement, because Bayard is advocating the Jus Sanguinus rule of citizenship.
"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."
Let's see what Vattel had to say about this from the 1902 Fenwick Translation of the 1858 Droit des Gens.
.
.
Three strikes and your out Jeff.
