Replies

“By the way, Vattel says those born in the Armies are considered born in the country, since they never left it’s jurisdiction.”

That clears that issue with McCain up. Still..when the Constitution was finally ratified, it did not change the system of laws that existed in the states that had their precedence in common law. We still in a sense (except for Louisiana) live under that system. If you are going to cite law in the courts of America, you can still cite Blackstone as precedence.... Vattel it seems would be mere reference..but here I’m out of my depth..but considering all the contortions I’ve seen over these past two years I’m not feeling very alone. Thank you for the polite and interesting conversation.

That clears that issue with McCain up.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Statutory citizenship means that a person's citizenship requires a law or laws to define it. A citizen via statute is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (that owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.

John McCain's father, John S. McCain Jr., was a US Naval officer serving in the Panama Canal Zone. His mother is Roberta Wright. Both were American citizens.

McCain gets his citizenship via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

This case fails the test of jus soli -- NOT born in the USA
This case meets the test of jus sanguinis -- parents are US citizens
This person has "dual citizenship" via his birthplace, is NOT a "natural born" citizen, and is NOT eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Only, Resolution 511 referenced the (repealed) Act of Naturalization of 1790 as being the source for their definition (i.e. TWO citizen parents), when they should have referenced Vattel as that definition. With Barry himself being a signatory, he too agrees that two citizen parentS are an important factor. How ironic. The point there, and with the rest, is that it's always been about two (2) citizen parents (and not being born under the jurisdiction of a foreign country).

It's interesting to note that I, in no way shape or form, have tried to discredit Blacktone's contributions to the founding of the country...yet, when it comes to Vattel's (clear) contributions, he is somehow "just" a theorist. As if, he were a nobody and did not influence in any way, the founders (just don't look at the strong parallels between the Vattel's ideals and the Declaration of Independence).

My post that you replied to was even prefaced with that. That it was about the term "Natural Born Citizen," only.

Clearly, the framers relied upon MANY sources to found our unique country. On where they got the definition for the term "Natural Born Citizen", it's clear they got it from Vattel, and not from trying to somehow manipulate a subject into a citizen and thereby making the definition for a subject, be the same for a citizen.

5 earlier SCOTUS cases restate the very same definition in their dicta, a founder restated the same definition in one of his dissertations and the father of the 14th Amendment restated the same definition.

A reference (as you suggest) is EXACTLY what is needed here, as there is no known legal precedent for a sitting POTUS, Commander in Chief of the armed forces and finger on the "button," being questioned about his being born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England.

By the way, Vattel was one of the most cited legal sources in the early years of the republic.

Cheers.

Regarding Vattel's influence on the founders...or rather, on their reliance upon his legal treatise, it appears that some additional information has been (re) discovered:

George Washington Consulted the Legal Treatise "Law of Nations" during his First Day in Office

I'll reiterate yet again so that the point doesn't get lost again (not necessarily by you), the founders relied upon MANY sources to guide them in the framing and governing of this new and unique country. Clearly, they relied heavily upon Vattel's interpretation of natural law.

That clears that issue with McCain up. Still..when the Constitution was finally ratified, it did not change the system of laws that existed in the states that had their precedence in common law.

And that common law was NOT part of the US Constitution. Also, NOT ALL the states followed the same common law as shows in the citizenship laws of Virginia that was written by Thomas Jefferson:

A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth

May 1779

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html

Thus, jus soli, birth on soil = automatic citizenship was NOT the universal common law adopted by the colonists and especially the founders/framers. They knew of the evils of foreign influences and took every measure to guard against it.