Replies

”The original point was that it was de Vattel's 'Law of Nations' published in 1792 since you were making the ten years [1797] after the 1787 Constitutional Convention silliness and then it was clarified for you in subsequent posts.”

Then as far as I can tell you were actually making no point at all. The 1792 Edition does not even contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” Here again is what that edition says:

If you can find the phrase “natural born citizen” there, I’ll completely stop posting on this issue.

”They "rejected de Vattel's idea"?

In that example you keep giving, you bet they did. De Vattel was opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. And we instead have the 2nd Amendment. You can’t reject de vattel any more forcefully than that.

”Franklin brought back 3 copies of the Law of Nations from France to the new continent. It was "continually in the hands of members" of Congress? And those same Founding Fathers praised de Vattel speaking about him in "high and just esteemed"? Oh yeah, it was 'rejected' in your words - LoL! “

Franklin did not bring them back. They were sent as gifts by their publisher in Amsterdam. And you , again, seem to completely miss the point. No matter how high their esteem, they still rejected his opinion on the right to bear arms. And since he offered no opinion on the definition of “natural born citizen” they didn’t even have to actually reject that. You can't really reject something that doesn't exist.

As to your continued convoluted effort to pretend Wong Kim Ark says the opposite of what it actually says, it does not matter how you interpret it, or how I interpret it. It only matters how other courts interpret it. We have had just such an interpretation handed down to us just a few months ago in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

”Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

These are not just two anonymous guys arguing on an Internet Forum, Red. This is a panel of real judges doing the real job of interpreting the real law.

In that example you keep giving, you bet they did. De Vattel was opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. And we instead have the 2nd Amendment. You can’t reject de vattel any more forcefully than that.

LoL again. You're staying true to form , except and funny, that the majority opinion of the court used de Vattel in their case [a footnote] in the right to bear arms over the DC Democrats who were against Heller. To repeat, de Vattel is used to uphold the 2nd Amendment not against it.

Then as far as I can tell you were actually making no point at all. The 1792 Edition does not even contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” Here again is what that edition says:

However, de Vattel does use the "Les naturels" which is "naturals" in French. The Founding Fathers had no problem reading Vattel's original French version. And as usual, you avoid the definition that follows. See below:

LoL! As I have previously pointed out that de Vattel was used in the SCOTUS majority opinion to make their case of the right to bear arms. It's a non-sequitur anyways you using this as a rejection of de Vattel's definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution.

And you , again, seem to completely miss the point. No matter how high their esteem, they still rejected his opinion on the right to bear arms. And since he offered no opinion on the definition of “natural born citizen” they didn’t even have to actually reject that. You can't really reject something that doesn't exist.

You seem to miss the point to why the graphic was posted in the first place, to show you that 1797 publishing of de Vattel was not the copy on-hand for SCOTUS and the government, but a 1792 de Vattel published issue, making your 10 year "natural born citizen" cite nonsense and suspect at best.

As to your continued convoluted effort to pretend Wong Kim Ark says the opposite of what it actually says, it does not matter how you interpret it, or how I interpret it. It only matters how other courts interpret it. We have had just such an interpretation handed down to us just a few months ago in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

A state case in Indiana that doesn't resolve anything and that it avoids Stare decisis handed down by the Supreme Court. A state case that punted the issue rather than hear the case on it's merits. Oh please...

Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

The Indiana judiciary avoided the relevant point when Justice Grey made the distinction between a citizen of the 14th Amendment and a natural born citizen. As I pointed out to YOU in a previous post on this thread.

Here's a 1952 Supreme Court case where it cites the facts of the case that Indiana failed to head:

- - - - - - -

"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law.

Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was

Page 343 U. S. 720

convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932.

First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Kawakita facts are the same as with Wong Kim Ark born to foreign nationals in the United States and a 14th Amendment citizen, and as you see, the Supreme Court does not confer natural born citizenship status on Kawakita because he is not. The Supreme Court has been consistent when using the phrases 'native born' vs 'natural born' in all their cases. That a 'native born' is born to the soil, and that a 'natural born citizen', is born to the soil and has citizens as parents.