The French had an understanding of "citoyen" at this time that held to a jus soli view.
Yeah, I looked that up. That appears to have started in 1515 by Royal Decree, and ended with the Napoleonic code in 1802. Presumably the older and subsequent understanding based on Roman law was jus sanguinus, but you can have your trivial little point. It doesn't greatly impact the larger point of whether or not the citizenship created by the Declaration of Independence was informed by Vattel.
Since the parallel between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" was amply made both before and after the framing of the Constitution, salvation has arrived.
Commensurate does not mean "equal." That one thing can be compared with another does not make them the same. The deliberate and intentional change of the word "Subject" into "Citizen" is pointless unless one postulates an intention to change the meaning and character as well.
Social inertia would have us continuing to use the word "Subject." Changing it to "Citizen" was deliberate and intended to represent a change in the relationship between the Governed and the Government. It was not innocuous or a whim.
What that term meant in 1787 is the issue.
No it isn't. The root of the meaning of "natural born citizen" does not lie in 1787. It comes from an earlier time. By 1787, it appears obvious that everyone already knew what it meant, and so therefore it had already been established. Court records and common sense point to 1776 as the date on which American Citizenship, as distinct from British Subjects, was created.
The US Constitution did not create citizens. The Articles of Confederation did not create citizens. The Declaration of Independence is what created citizens, therefore the meaning of the word "citizen" must be derived from the natural law principles informing the Declaration.
There is nothing in the Declaration supporting English Common law. The very document is an explicit rejection of the English Common law premise of "Divine Right", the legal and moral basis on which the Jus Soli nature of English Subjects is founded.
And I'll wager they mention Montesquieu and Blackstone even more. So what's your point?
To rebut your ignorant and stupid point that because you didn't find Vattel mentioned in the Federalist papers, he has no significance. Don't you remember your own ignorant and stupid points that you put forth?
Why are you citing to the "modern court?" According to you, the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 was "modern." You are nothing if not inconsistent.
I have no trouble believing modern courts can search through files and figure out how many times someone has been cited. That is a comparatively simple task, but as far as getting "original intent" correct after a hundred or more years, they have had a very poor track record.
You are once more demonstrating your level of idiocy in comparing the one thing to the other. It is the sort of childish argument that you make a habit of putting forth.
What you don't have in either the Convention or Ratifying debates is anyone citing to Vattel on citizenship. All you have is one great hand-wave that because you see Vattel cited on other points that he was the influence on Article II NBC.
Because at the time it was considered to be such an insignificant and trivial detail that no one saw the need to discuss it at any length. They all knew the Declaration created citizenship, and they were all well aware of the natural law foundation of it. It wasn't debated because it was assumed they were all in agreement, and weightier things needed to be discussed.
And again, you are once more ignoring the fact that your stupid @$$ made it a topic by noting that you didn't see Vattel in the "Federalist Papers." If you thought it so important as to mention the "Federalist Papers", you can now take your stupid lumps for having it pointed out to you that he was mentioned in a context more significant than that one you seemed to think was relevant.
I'd act aghast that you cannot possibly be this dishonest (or this stupid) as to hold up Joseph Story on this point, but you've got a long track record of pulling these stunts.
You are so predictable. I knew when I did that you were going to go back and get the rest of his quote. I originally put the whole thing in there, but I told myself "Captain PounceTrifle" will ignore the larger point, and focus on that tiny bit which he will try to warp into agreement with his position."
I then thought, "Wouldn't it be cute for me to leave that out, and watch the little snake go get the rest, just so he CAN ignore the point made in my quote?" (That Justice Story specifically acknowledges you can be born in this country without being a citizen.)
You are dancing to the strings I pull, you stupid ignorant little puppet! Ha ha ha ha ha...
Story lays out the same rule enunciated by Z. Swift 8 years after the Constitution was drafted.
And he immediately points out that it doesn't work like that in the case of a child born in the US to British citizens. This is doubly damaging to your claim, because he's one of the ones you claim to be on your side.
You can run your big mouth all you like, but Story is telling you that a Child who's parents owe allegiance to another nation, is *NOT* an American citizen.
This is where the G**D@mn collection of liars on your side always go. You take ambiguity in the specifics of the general rule (that someone born here is generally a citizen) and you push way past a common sense understanding of the meaning into a technicality based sophist assertion that this is the only thing required.
Story is bitchslapping your stupid theory in a very clear and precise way. He is directly contradicting your assertions.
Of course anyone who is not a f***ing idiot, knows that we had something like 100,000 British Loyalists and their Children who remained British Subjects after 1776, because the "born on the soil" rule did not actually apply. They retained loyalty to the allegiance under which they were born, not Allegiance to the Nation owning the Soil under which they were born.
Which is what I pointed out several posts ago. It's good you're catching up.
It doesn't greatly impact the larger point of whether or not the citizenship created by the Declaration of Independence was informed by Vattel.
Greatly impact? No. Though you still lack a direct argument.
But insofar as you and others try to paint a dichotomy between a jus soli subjecthood cast off in the Revolution and jus sanguinis citizenship informed by Vattel, it much weakens your argument. Apart from England, France is the nation best known to the Founders and Framers. Franklin was ambassador there during the War. France assisted the U.S. The nations engaged in commerce. Your repeated point about there being some profound distinction between "subject" and "citizen" is rendered all the more trivial when at the time that well-known nation of citoyens held to a jus soli rule as well.
Commensurate does not mean "equal." That one thing can be compared with another does not make them the same.
They don't need to be equal for it to be accepted the relationship to the sovereign via birth follows the same rule. It suffices they are seen as analogous, which the courts and commentators have acknowledged.
The deliberate and intentional change of the word "Subject" into "Citizen" is pointless unless one postulates an intention to change the meaning and character as well.
Or one can as well postulate that the change is driven simply by recognition of the change in government -- that "citizen" became the more precise, more appropriate term. Given that such is the view espoused by the legal commentators and SCOTUS, your simply repeating "but I can come up with another reason" gets you nowhere.
In any case, "citizen" by no means necessarily signifies jus sanguinis. See explanation above.
The root of the meaning of "natural born citizen" does not lie in 1787. It comes from an earlier time. By 1787, it appears obvious that everyone already knew what it meant, and so therefore it had already been established.
I'll agree here. Prior to 1787 there is a several hundred year usage in English of "natural born" having the meaning "having the nature or characteristic at birth." And there are documented instances between 1776 and 1787 of "nbs" and "nbc" being used in interchangeable fashion.
By contrast, I've seen no usage in English of "natural born" before 1787 meaning "from like parent(s)." Even to this day "natural born" is used as then. For example, we may speak of a person being a "natural born athlete," meaning gifted with innate athletic talent from birth. Does that signify or require that one or both parents were gifted athletes? No. They may be, but often enough they are not.
That's how English usage works.
There is nothing in the Declaration supporting English Common law.
This is stupid. The Declaration is a litany of Colonists' grievances that their common law rights were unjustly being denied.
The very document is an explicit rejection of the English Common law premise of "Divine Right", the legal and moral basis on which the Jus Soli nature of English Subjects is founded.
That "Divine Right" concept already had been tossed aside by the English when they executed Charles I. That was his argument. It failed rather spectacularly. Which means you need a better one, too.
To rebut your ignorant and stupid point that because you didn't find Vattel mentioned in the Federalist papers, he has no significance.
Strawman alert. I never said he had no significance. To the contrary. My point is that his absence from the Federalist Papers and relatively fewer references elsewhere greatly weaken your argument that Vattel was just SO preeminent that it points to him as the foundation of the Article II citizenship terms.
They all knew the Declaration created citizenship, and they were all well aware of the natural law foundation of it.
Yes, but here you're intimating the Vattel-birther conceit that "natural law foundation" means "from Vattel." This extraordinarily stupid example of selective sampling and tunnel-vision should have ended long ago.
There were MANY influential writers who discussed natural law. Burlamaqui wrote a treatise on it. And as my prior post notes, he was the first to speak of man's happiness being the end of the natural state. (Declaration, anyone?) Montesquieu wrote on natural law and natural rights. Locke wrote on it. Blackstone wrote on it. Here, chew on this one, Chief. Blackstone's View of Natural Law and Its Influence on the Formation of American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You need more than just a reference to "natural law" to get clearly into Vattel territory.
You are so predictable. I knew when I did that you were going to go back and get the rest of his quote. I originally put the whole thing in there, but I told myself "Captain PounceTrifle" will ignore the larger point, and focus on that tiny bit which he will try to warp into agreement with his position."
I then thought, "Wouldn't it be cute for me to leave that out, and watch the little snake go get the rest, just so he CAN ignore the point made in my quote?" (That Justice Story specifically acknowledges you can be born in this country without being a citizen.)
You are dancing to the strings I pull, you stupid ignorant little puppet! Ha ha ha ha ha...
This whole schpiel smacks of "Methinks the DumbDumb doth protest too much." You've rarely exhibited the talent to think even one step ahead. I seriously doubt you planned this one.
In any case, this one required you to think two steps ahead. And you didn't. So your histrionics are setting the stage for your epic fail.
A reminder of how Story articulates the general common law rule:
If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Story lays out that under the general common law rule, birth in the realm suffices to make one a citizen, irrespective of the citizenship (ultimate allegiance ) of the father.
Got that?
And he immediately points out that it doesn't work like that in the case of a child born in the US to British citizens.
No, DumbDumb, that is NOT what he writes. You are over-reading his words. Justice Story is a lot smarter than you, and it's not to be supposed in the next sentence he contradicts what he just said in the sentence I quoted.
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.
So he doesn't say "a child born in the U.S. to British parents is NOT born a citizen." Nope. Nothing that broad. He says "if the demandant was born after 15 September 1776," then he may not be a citizen.
Now why is the September 15 date significant in Story's mind? Why does the outcome on citizenship of John IngIis shift potentially at that date? I'm sure you had absolutely no clue when you first brought up this case nor even in this last reply. If you had, you wouldn't have run your mouth so as to display such ineptitude.
But I'm not going to tell you at present. Let's all see if you can figure it out yourself.