It's not my interpretation, it is what the original Hebrew that God gave His children says. (Zeph 3:9) But don't rely on me, the founders were very wise & many were also studied in Hebrew. It might behoove you to actually study the guys to learn who they were and what they were taught from their youth.
Did Common Law Really Grant Automatic US Citizenship Upon Birth Regardless Of Parentage? Part II
So, how do we define the difference between ‘citizen’ & ‘natural born’ citizen? Liberal constitutional scholars and progressive legalese rely on English common law that was in place prior to the revolution. Their interpretation is that if you are born of the soil, you are a natural born citizen and they wallow in diluted elitism by citing historical foreign law & case precedent, when in fact there is plenty of American law & legal case history for one to learn from. Now, as I have said before, to think that the founding fathers & patriots fought a bloody war only to adopt the same definition of citizenship that they were oppressed under by the English Monarchy is to believe that there never was a bloody war to gain freedom from it. The feudal form of government that the British adopted did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not he people. In the very 1st US Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia) written by Chief Justice John Jay, we find our 1st clue as to the type of citizenship the founding fathers adopted for the new nation:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
Chief Justice John Jay was also the person who sent this historical letter to George Washington the summer of 1787 before the constitution was finalized:
[Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.]
So, if the people are the sovereigns, not the government, then where did the definition come from? For that we go to the very 1st commentaries on US law, Lectures on Law by Justice James Wilson, 1791. In the lectures Wilson expounds heavily on early philosophers and the different forms of government from the earliest of times that have been recorded. When he finally gets to discussing the laws adopted by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states, he writes:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects
Thus if we go back to Dt 17:14-15 and YHVH's use of the word "sovereign", we get the definition of who is a sovereign. British subjects were never considered sovereigns. Accordign to British law the king was considered the one & ONLY sovereign; thus NBC does not mean the same as NBS as you proffer.
And once again, I will not leave it to you to interpret God's will. I won't answer that one again.
This is a point that is continuously lost on the legitimacy supporters, but it is the crucial distinction between a citizen and a subject. Jus Soli is based on the Common law of the Monarchy, and is part of the trappings of Monarchy that we through off with our Independence. (Individual States might not have, but it was certainly the intent of our Federal government.)
Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects
I recall reading somewhere that the English changed their definition of "natural born subject" as the result of an ascension fight among the Royals. Apparently there was a Royal in the line of Ascension that was born in England, but not to a British Subject, and as a result his supporters interpreted the law in such a way as to allow it.
I didn't get a chance to read it all the way through, and I have since misplaced the link to that article. Would you happen to know anything about it?