I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the reason for the natural born citizen requirement was to minimize the possibility of undue foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father who might owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
The SCOTUS, members of the founding generation, quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations that defined a natural born citizen as having two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation to define an NBC for purposes of that decision.
The founders were patriarchs, no matter how offensive that term may be to many current sensibilities. They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father. I believe that only an Article V constitutional amendment can redefine that meaning.
I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the reason for the natural born citizen requirement was to minimize the possibility of undue foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father who might owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
There was expressed fear of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces becoming a foreign prince. At the time expressed, it had not been determined that the President would also be the Commander-in-Chief.
The SCOTUS, members of the founding generation, quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations that defined a natural born citizen as having two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation to define an NBC for purposes of that decision.
I take it you are unfamiliar with what the Law of Nations is.
law of nations. See INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
The "Law of Nations" is the old fashioned term for the modern term "International Law." It applies to relations between nations, but not to the domestic affairs of any single nation. United States citizenhip is determined unilaterally by the United States, not an international court in Belgium. Vattel, his book, and international law have nothing whatever to do with the determination of U.S. citizenship.
They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father.
The original thirteen states all explicitly adopted so much of the English common law as did not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, either in their state constitution or by statute law.
The United States followed English common law, not the writings a Swiss guy who wrote a book on international law in French.
As for SCOTUS "quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations," I believe you refer not to the opinion of the majority written by Washington, J., but a dissenting opinion at 12 U.S. 289. There, the discussion was explicitly of international law and not U.S. citizenship law.
On the one hand we have a quote from Vatel in a decision only tangentially related to NBC, and on the other we have the clear reliance on English common law by the founders and their actual practices regarding citizenship.
I'll go with the common law precedent.
They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father. I believe that only an Article V constitutional amendment can redefine that meaning.
If they really believed that they did a terrible job enacting it in our constitution and laws.
In fact, there are countless examples of them rejecting that notion.
You're certainly right about having to amend the Constitution to change it.