“Kent clearly states here that natural does not equate to native as birth was not a requirement to being a native at the signing of the constitution:”
Please try to read some history, or even the rest of the Constitution. The ‘grandfather clause’ allowed anyone who was a subject of the American colonies, and who had helped the rebellion, to automatically become a ‘natural born citizen’, because they had given birth to the nation, instead of the nation giving birth to them. That only applied to those alive at the signing of the Constitution.
“So, when defining original intent, birth was NOT a requisite for being classified as a Native.”
Again, incorrect. Those who helped give birth to the nation were grandfathered in. Those who followed, not having participated in the nation’s birth, would need to be born in the nation. And while they were not natives, they were considered as such - per Kent’s words.
“The Indians were all native-born, yet they were not all citizens.”
The Indians were considered separate nations leaving in the US per treaties with them. And at the time the Constitution was written, they held the vast majority of the land...
Talk about stupid, you can't even understand simple language!
Kent said & I quote:
“(1.) Natives . . . If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.”
Those “resident citizens” who took part, deliberately yielded an to the revolution, NOT those whom came afterward for those were the 1st immigrants to the US. DUH!
You had better go back & read history as some natives were part of the revolution & became citizens. At the time of the revolution, the states determined citizenship, NOT the Congress of the confederate states. Another DUH!
James Kent:
When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among the civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. During the war of the American revolution, Congress claimed cognizance of all matters arising upon the law of nations, and they professed obedience to that law, “ according to the general usages of Europe.”* By this law we are to understand that code of public instruction, which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each other. The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character, and to the happiness of mankind.
a Ordinance of the 4th December, 1781, relative to maritime captures. Journals of Congress, vol. vii. 185.
b L’Etprit des Loir., b. 1 c 8.
The most useful and practical part of the law of nations is, no doubt, instituted or positive law, founded on usage, consent, and agreement. But it would be improper to separate this law entirely from natural jurisprudence, and not to consider it as deriving much of its force, and dignity, and sanction, from the same principles of right reason, and the same view of the nature and constitution of man, from which the science of morality is deduced. There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
s. Vattel, Prelim sec. 7
Kent only makes mention of Blackstone's English common law in passing 7 times in the entire 1st Vol of his commentaries when writing of our founding and what the founders used as a base for American laws aka the Constitution. However, Kent cites & quotes Vattel on page after page, on every topic including “natural” jurisprudence as shown above; which by the way is only 2 paragraphs from the 1st 2 pages of Kent's Commentary Vol 1. Kent's Commentaries on American law Vol 1 lays the foundation of American Law & it didn't come from English common law, but form the only laws for a moral & religious society which is that of the law of nations.
According to the 1795 edition of the Law of Nations Obama is not a natural born citizen.
The 1805 edition of the Law of Nations is the same..Obama is not a natural born citizen.
The 1758, 1759, 1760, 1797, 1854, 1856, 1886, 1883...editions of Vattel’s Law of Nations show Obama is an illegal President.
One example the US Supreme Court used Vattel’s Law of Nations. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?linkurl=%3C%linkurl%%3E&graphurl=%3C%graphurl%%3E&friend=%3C%20riend%%3E&court=us&vol=120&invol=479
James Kent:
When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among the civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. During the war of the American revolution, Congress claimed cognizance of all matters arising upon the law of nations, and they professed obedience to that law, “ according to the general usages of Europe.”* By this law we are to understand that code of public instruction, which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each other. The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character, and to the happiness of mankind.
These are NOT my words, these are Kent's words, the Law of Nations is essential to national character aka nationality aka citizenship. Or as Kent put it here as well as is wriiten in the Ceclaration of Independence, the happiness of mankind.