Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sibre Fan

Ok I will delve into this deeper.

It seems that Vattel was available in English as early as 1759 and a copy was on hand during the writing of the Constitution.

I think the source for the Natural Born requirement was from Vattel. But I will get your sources and educated myself to see if a rationale argument can be made for any other interpretation given the sources and background of the framers.

Thanks,


336 posted on 10/14/2009 4:56:18 PM PDT by Lundy_s Lane II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies ]


To: Lundy_s Lane II
It seems that Vattel was available in English as early as 1759 and a copy was on hand during the writing of the Constitution.

I believe there was an English version as early as 1759 or 1760, which referred to "the natives or indigenes," but did not use the term "natural-born." As far as I am aware, the only legal treatise using the specific term "natural-born" during that period was Blackstone, who defined "natural-born" subjects according to jus soli principles, while recognizing jus sanguinis had been applied to children born outside the realm under various statutes.
345 posted on 10/14/2009 5:07:16 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

To: Lundy_s Lane II
And thank you. As a follow-up correction, I provided two cites to the Lynch case, but upon checking the second cite further, I should not have included it because (a) it is not a complete reproduction of the case; and (b) the blog's author has editorialized in the text of the opinion excerpts cited. Therefore, the appropriate link to use is this one.
359 posted on 10/14/2009 5:32:55 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

To: Lundy_s Lane II; Sibre Fan

“natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html


466 posted on 10/18/2009 7:30:57 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson