http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=558#558
I wrote:
"However, your argument is that -- as Lawyers -- the Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law, such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen.
You wrote:
"Of course it was not incumbent on them to do anything. It was their conscious choice."
"Had they, on the other hand, decided to attach a new and previously unknown definition to what was otherwise a well unknown and commonly used term of art, it would have been incumbent on them to announce that they were doing so and explicitly provide this innovative definition. They pointedly did not bother."
So your answer is YES!
The Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen... "It was their conscious choice" as you said.
Thank you!
I wrote:
"Would it not be far MORE reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters?"
You wrote:
"Certainly not. Perhaps you should go back and read the earlier Declaration of Independence. In particular, pay attention to the enumerated grievances. They are on the whole a series of objections to the Crown’s violations of English common law. The Colonies did not rebel against English common law, they rebelled against King George’s violation of that law. The revolution was as much about restoring the primacy of the law over arbitrary tyranny as it was about any desire to form an independent nation."
So your answer is it would "Certainly not"(your words)be reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters.
Thank you!
I wrote:
"Why do you insist it is unreasonable for us to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations?"
You Wrote:
"It is not merely unreasonable… it is impossible. De Vattel cannot be given credit for defining something he never even mentioned, referred to or wrote about."
So "it is impossible" (your words) to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations.
Thank you!
As for defining "something he {De Vattel} never even mentioned, referred to or wrote about" (your words) I had submitted the following to you in an former post:
"I say,that in order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN, for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY"{Vattel}
(Emphases mine)
NOT HIS COUNTRY!
No it doesn't "contain the phrase natural born citizens."
It just gives the very DEFINITION for Natural Born Citizen.
"In order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN"
... "for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY."
The DEFINITION you say doesn't exist or couldn't be traced to Vattel!
You are either (1)pretending to be dense (2) you think WE are stupid (3) you think those that peruse Free Republic are!
A child born of a foreign national Father IS NOT A Natural Born Citizen... period!
Vattel knew it.
The framers knew it.
Most Americans know it!
Hell... even Obama knows it!
"The natives, or indigenes,{in-the-genes!}are those born (1) in the country {of the soil}of (2) parentS who are citizenS"{of the blood}
A "Natural Born Citizen" is one born in country to citizen parentS
Foreign Nationals need not apply!
Let's review whether it is reasonable to think Vattel influenced the framers.
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of VATTEL. It came to us **in good season** when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary FREQUENTLY to CONSULT the LAW OF NATIONS. Accordingly, that copy which I KEPT, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been CONTINUALLY in the HAND of the MEMBERS of our CONGRESS, now sitting, who are much PLEASED with your notes and preface, and have ENTERTAINED a HIGH and JUST ESTEEM for their author" {Vattel}...
(Emphases mine)
We the underwritten, appointed by the American congress a committee of foreign correspondence having perused the above Letter, Written at our Request, do approve and confirm the same.
(Signed) John Dickinson
John Jay
STE=Q
IT WOULD SEEM WE HAVE GONE FULL CIRCLE, MR WIGGINS.
IT WOULD ALSO SEEM THAT WE HAVE POLITICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES THAT CANNOT BE EASILY -- IF AT ALL -- BRIDGED.
AT THE BASE -- AT THE HEART OF IT ALL -- YOU EQUATE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WITH A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.
WE CAN NEVER AGREE TO SUCH A SUPPOSITION -- NEVER!
THOSE WITH EVEN A MODICUM OF GOD GIVEN INTELLIGENCE WILL SEE THE IMPLICATIONS IMPLICIT IN SUCH A SUPPOSITION.
THEY WILL REJECT IT!
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU AS A WEST POINT GRADUATE...
GOOD LUCK!
STE=Q