Replies

Thank you Diogenes for your several references, US Steel and “From the Athenian Constitution”. My reference to the significance of Vattel, was F.S. Ruddy, “The Importance of Vattel” in the Grotian Society Papers 1972”. Among the comments by Ruddy was “James Wilsons’ Lectures on Jurisprudence, in 1790, which gave “the first American presentation of the principles of the law of nature and of nations” followed Vattel very closely.” “In addition, when Jefferson inaugurated the study of the Law of Nature and of Nations at William and Mary College in 1779, the text from then until 1841 was Vattel’s.”

Ruddy, citing a Professor Dickenson, produced a chart comparing the four most cited legal authorities used by U.S. courts, Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, and Vattel. Vattel was cited in Pleadings, Citations, and Quotations abour four times more frequently than any of the others, with Bynkershoek in second place. This was our law, our common-law according to some, and a brilliant work as I believe you well know. (It was illuminating to read in Vattel the notion of judicial review made famous by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who studied at William and Mary where Vattel was the required textbook).

Some of the old trolls appear to be coming out of hibernation for this thread, and we have some new ones. You appear to be a relative latecomer, clearly not a troll, and bringing fresh scholarship, so please understand that it is an attribute of political propagandists that their object has noting to do with truth or accuracy. They want to obscure an inconvenient truth. Some respondents are simply ignorant and too lazy to read the original sources, but explaining the truth is still worth some time because there are many who are interested, and willing to learn from those who support their arguments adequately.

Because of the GOP’s penchant for naturalized candidates it would not surprise to find that some of the disrupters could be propagandists for the “our” side. They proffered McCain when his ineligibility can be traced through six or seven years of Washington Post/Amazon articles/ LA Times, NY Times, and Chicago Trib.

If conservatives have good reason to believe they are being hornswoggled by their own political party, for reasons we may never know, but most likely have to do with money, the GOP won’t have a prayer against Hillary, who is a natural born citizen. Obama told us he is a naturalized citizen, a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth, if anyone bothered to read his reference, the 1948 British Nationality Act. He told Joe the plumber he believed in redistribution and presumably won the election. Better to know what we are dealing with than trust liars.

Keep supporting the truth.

You may be interested to know that I have some quotes from James Wilson that support the inheritable position on Citizenship.

“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority,b Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”
A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.

It would be very helpful if you would put links and quotes in the Vattel Research thread. I keep quite a lot of information in the form of links and files, but I find it is often easier to simply put it in the Vattel Research thread for easy reference, and also so I don't have to remember where I put it.

They want to obscure an inconvenient truth.

Exactly correct. I will further add, it is my opinion that this effort to obscure inconvenient truth started in the Early 1800s. If you haven't read my theory about Rawle, you should. Rawle associated closely with people who knew the truth, and clearly enunciated the truth, yet Rawle published a book completely at odds with positions he knew to be very firm with his more authoritative Associates.

I believe that the problem was further exacerbated by British trained lawyers, and various flavors of abolitionists, simply repeating as fact what they wanted to be true. They muddied the waters.

I am certain that many of those arguing for a very liberal interpretation of "natural born citizen" are on "our" side. These people are motivated by political expediency and if the truth does not agree with their needs, so much the worse for the truth.

Most of the people with whom i've had the greatest difficulty are those who's eyes are on poll numbers rather than history. They want to believe in the loose interpretation because it fits the need of their political avarice.

Sultan Knish has made a good attempt at explaining why the elite establishment are at odds with conservatives. I think he has nailed it.

Better to know what we are dealing with than trust liars.

I think we are fighting against liars in our own party as much as we are fighting Democrats.

I also wish to thank you for your efforts. I have read and followed much of what you have written, and I very much appreciate your work. I am only too happy to add my little part to all our efforts to discover and promote an accurate understanding of this issue.