Replies

Oh I should have added 'change the question to that list'

First, your complaint was 'natural born citizen' was nowhere to be found in Vattel. And I showed you.

THEN you complained it was only once, and demanded a direct connection. and I showed you.

THEN you complained that that connection wasn't specifically for that particular clause.

If that was they only evidence that would satisfy you, why be coy? Why not just say so?

Maybe...because you really weren't interested in an answer? Maybe you get your jollies moving the goalpost?

It doesn't matter, because even if that were presented, you wouldn't be convinced, you would find another complaint.

It's not in the original French, it's not translated correctly, etc., etc., etc.

If you think the Founders spoke words like:

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

And still not see the correlation between them and the The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law [which is the title in the 1758 edition printed in 1797], then there never WILL be enough evidence for you.

Good day.

You say: First, your complaint was 'natural born citizen' was nowhere to be found in Vattel. And I showed you. I say: You showed me a lie. NBC was not found in any translation until years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified. There were MANY English translations of Vattel’s book available throughout the world before the Constitution was written but the words NBC were not interposed until 1797. This is a 1760 version in English that was available and it did not contain the term natural born citizen.

Natural Born Citizen translated into the French would be “citoyen de naissance.” You will not find that in any French version of Vattel’s book. You will find NATURELS which translated = adj. natural, inartificial, unaffected; easy, unsophisticated; organic, inbred; and INDIGENES = adj. indigenous, native; nm. native, someone who is indigenous, resident of a certain place from the time of birth You say: THEN you complained it was only once, and demanded a direct connection. and I showed you. I Say: Did you know that one sentence is the only time in Vattel’s book that indigenes (the closest meaning to NBC that can be found) is used? In the next sentence, Vattel continues: “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” In French, however, Vattel writes, “Le patrie des peres est donc celle des enfants; & ceut-ci devienment de veritables citoyens par leur simple consentement tacite.” Interestingly, if one looks at the citizenship law of France from the time, one finds: Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran�§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise. The true and natural French citizens are those born within the French dominion. Citoyen = Citizen. It is clear in Vattel that that is what he was using, and it is clear in contemporaneous French law that citoyen is the word one uses when talking about citizens. Finally you say: THEN you complained that that connection wasn't specifically for that particular clause. I say: There is no evidence that Vattel had anything to do with citizenship issues. It has been repeatedly noted that Vattel was referenced in terms of international commerce by the Founders. There is no dispute or controversy on that. Nor is that relevant to the issues of citizenship, the topic of this thread. Surely you know the difference between international commerce and citizenship? So where did the term Natural Born come from? The Founders were smart people, many of them experienced lawyers. They knew that there was an English phrase Natural Born Subject, which had been in use in England for 400 years. This same phrase, Natural born subject was used in the Constitutions and Charters of the colonies. Despite there existing this phrase, Natural Born Subject, that everyone knew, that had been used by each of the colonies, and which formed the backbone of many of the legal Arguments the Revolutionaries made in supporting the Revolution, YOU think they scrapped the meaning of natural born. Now here’s where it gets outlandishly dumb – instead of choosing a different phrase than the one that was 400 years old, and in common use, natural born, according to you and other misguided individuals, the Framers used the SAME phrase and expected that people would just get that they meant to refer to Vattel’s book- even though Vattel’s book was in French and never said natural born citizen! I with I could have put all that in capital letters and shout it out to you. The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did. They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion but we really like that Vattel guy and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it that way.” In your world, the framers were complete imbeciles, aren’t they?