“The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.â€
...........................................................
.” The common law of England is not the common
law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.
THURSDAY, June 19, 1788.[1] Mr. George Mason
The Constitutional Committee adhered to Vattel and not to English Common Law. Blackstone vs Vattel is resolved several times in the course of the Constitutional Committee with Vattel supreme.
“The Constitutional Committee adhered to Vattel and not to English Common Law. Blackstone vs Vattel is resolved several times in the course of the Constitutional Committee with Vattel supreme.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vattel never wrote about natural born citizens. The Founders did not require the President to be a “native citizen” or an “indigenous citizen” - which would follow Vattel - but a “natural born citizen”, a term used interchangeably with the English common law term “natural born subject”.
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
According to James Madison the delegates referenced Blackstone’s Commentaries to resolve questions on legal terms and concepts such as “ex post facto laws”.