Posted on 05/09/2013 7:44:25 PM PDT by Nachum
Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.
Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”
“He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added.
Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.
Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting,” the law professor explained. “I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
You do comprehend what is the fallacy of numbers? Also the Fallacy of ad nauseam applies.
Don't care if he wrote a DOZEN books, what is his basis for understanding? From whence did he get his "expertise"? By following Lafayette around and picking out his clothes?
Unless he is a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, or perhaps even someone who worked closely with them during this period, his expertise is NULL.
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
And he said that all it took was being born in the United States.
Once again, you spin BS.
We are unimpressed by the "authority" of Lafayette's Valet and you think it's BS? I wonder what his cook and dishwasher thought? I suppose they are "Authorities" too? Perhaps his tailor should be consulted?
A man is writing a book in which he sets forth the Constitutional requirement for being President of the United States. He has direct, personal access to not one, not two, but ALL SIX of our first SIX Presidents.
Yes, and below is an illustration of how he acquired all their knowledge of issues constitutional.
I'm sure they all delighted in discussing the issue with a foreign Valet.
If he had any question about what the term meant, or what the qualification was, he would've asked one of his friends. And they would've told him.
Non sequitur. That entire generation was excluded from the requirement of being a "natural citizen", so there was very little focus on what was the correct meaning. A lot of people not connected to the deliberations simply assumed the English Common law rule applied.
Most books on the constitution devote very little time to the "natural citizen" clause. The focus of the content is about everything else. Article II is a minor cul de sac of which few people regarded as important at the time, and it is quite reasonable to expect they didn't make much effort to find out details about it and merely assumed that the general rule of English Common law applied.
Again, unless someone is a delegate, their opinion on this point is non-authoritative.
You mean like William Rawle, who worked closely with Constitutional Convention President George Washington, major Constitutional Convention leader Benjamin Franklin, and several other Framers during the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and who gave a presentation to this core group of Founders on encouraging immigration?
Do you think such a person would be in a better position to know what a "natural born citizen" was?
Never mind the answer to that - BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS "YES." THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." - William Rawle, United States District Attorney and author of one of the major early works on the Constitution
Ah, wait. You have someone BETTER, don't you? Samuel Roberts, a little judge over several counties, who was NOT a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, who didn't work with ANY of the Founders or Framers, and who cites no authority but his own opinion.
Or maybe David Ramsay, who was expressly voted down 36 to 1 by a group led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, and which included 5 other signers of the Constitution.
Because those are the only REAL "authorities" from all of early America that you have.
Once again, by disparaging the best authorities, you illustrate what a fraud you are.
First of all, Rogers v. Bellei doesn't "demonstrate that conclusively." The case affirmed that Congress could set conditions whereby someone born a citizen abroad might LOSE his US citizenship. It NEVER said that such a person, if born a citizen, was NOT a "natural born citizen."
But even if it had...
And now you are creating your own "Wall of Text". For some reason, you think pointing out how many courts got something wrong is going to convince any of us that Numbers=Correct.
So if YOU PERSONALLY like a particular court decision, why, that "proves" your own claims "CONCLUSIVELY."
If somebody ELSE produces a DOZEN court cases that say you're completely full of sh*t, why, THOSE court cases are all BAD. Those court cases are all WRONG. They don't count for anything.
Once again you show all of FreeRepublic your double standard. Once again you show what a 100% hypocrite and fraud you are.
There's not the slightest SHRED of evidence that they did. But even if they had, the Constitution wouldn't mean what the writers said it meant, in some smoky back room.
It would mean what the people who VOTED IT INTO LAW believed it meant, and what they believed they were voting into law.
Justice Scalia agree with you on that point:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation." - District of Colombia v. Heller (2008)
Vattel's twenty-first century fans got themselves into this mess by their felt need for a philosophical platform that would permit them to continue to believe that the United States doesn't really have a president. Vattelism is designed to discourage the rest of us from lumping together those who say, "there is no president" with those who say "there is no gravity" or "Elvis is not dead." The more interesting question is why some people are psychologically unable to just accept the reality that, like it or not, Obama is the president and that, on two separate occasions, the voters and their electors have chosen him and implicitly determined that he meets the constitutional qualifications.
If Cruz should run, all this crazy research will be passed on like a runner's baton to crackpots on the left who may even "improve" on it. But, those who actually choose our presidents (voters/electors) are not likely to be persuaded by any of this nonsense.
And, that's all that really matters.
You’re citing a decision that has been moot for 35 years.
“The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”
That’s like citing Dred Scott to support the theory that Obama can’t be president because he’s of African origin.
No, not like Rawle at all. He did not attend deliberations, he was not a delegate, and he played no role in the Convention or ratification. Apart from that, he was trained in London at British law, and therefore is a contaminated source for issues where American law deviates from British law.
From what I have discovered, I think Rawle knew fully well that Vattel was the basis of "natural born citizen", but intentionally mislead others about it. There is no way he could not have known about that Book, because it was the product of people whom he knew personally, and was created at the behest of the State Legislature, and thereafter used as a reference by all the courts in Pennsylvania.
Yes, Rawle knew very well of that book, and intentionally misled people in his own.
Ah, wait. You have someone BETTER, don't you? Samuel Roberts, a little judge over several counties, who was NOT a Delegate, or a member of the ratifying legislature, who didn't work with ANY of the Founders or Framers, and who cites no authority but his own opinion.
I'm glad you brought him up. As usual, your attempt at being clever is going to backfire on you. Suppose you tell me how Roberts obtained his legal education, and from whom. I'll wait.
Once again, by disparaging the best authorities, you illustrate what a fraud you are.
OMG! A British Lawyer, a French Janitor, and some Spanish guy who wrote a book are your "best authorities"? You just don't realize how silly you look.
Just because you say that courts got something wrong doesn’t make it so.
Rulings stand unless and until they are reversed.
People who are not complete fools understand that the one condition is a consequence of the other, without it having to be explicitly spelled out for them. Of course YOU don't see it. Here's a new word for you A-X-I-O-M-A-T-I-C.
You also further overlook the fact that congress "set the condition" of birth. They had the authority to set the condition as 6 months after birth, had they so chose. The issue is that they SET conditions, making it non-natural.
So if YOU PERSONALLY like a particular court decision, why, that "proves" your own claims "CONCLUSIVELY."
No, it just means THAT court got it right. Nice to see you admitting that some courts don't agree with your theory.
If somebody ELSE produces a DOZEN court cases that say you're completely full of sh*t, why, THOSE court cases are all BAD. Those court cases are all WRONG. They don't count for anything.
Garbage in, Garbage out. Court decisions based on bad or misinterpreted precedent will always be garbage. Most modern courts fall into this category.
Once again you show all of FreeRepublic your double standard. Once again you show what a 100% hypocrite and fraud you are.
Poor straw-man. Jeff just beats him mercilessly.
And of course you are your own "authority."
"And I am Unanimous in this!"
I whip your @$$, and naturally you don't like the intrusion of reality into your own little deluded world. I expect you are going to enjoy plenty more @$$whippings in the future.
If you cannot, it is because the Precedent for it is Swiss, not English.
But the Legal principle for it still applies. The fact that they MODIFIED the law, does not speak to the point. The Law is what CONGRESS says it is, but this is a very different thing from "natural." The foundation upon which is built the citizenship of children born to a single American Parent in a foreign land is subject to the ever shifting sands of Congressional whim.
This is a far cry from being a "natural citizen." A Citizenship granted by Congress can be removed by congress, and therefore it is different from a citizenship which cannot.
That’s like citing Dred Scott to support the theory that Obama can’t be president because he’s of African origin.
Though I think Taney was wrong on that, if I followed your methodology, it would have been binding precedent until 1868. See what kind of trouble you can get into when you worship at the altar of Judicial infallibility?
This is true, but you are reversing cause and effect. Because the courts ARE wrong, I say so.
Rulings stand unless and until they are reversed.
Sometimes for a very long time. Mores' the pity that Judges follow blindly the wagon ruts laid down before them.
Not a good judgement from the Wong court.
If you cannot, it is because the Precedent for it is Swiss, not English.
I can't tell you what I think of a comment like that. I say that, recognizing that my inability to understand the point you are trying to make is just further evidence for you that I am crazy.
If you want this country to adopt Vattelism (as it might relate to "natural born citizen") in the next election, you will need to make your pitch to the American voters and their electors. In the twenty-first century, most folks don't capitalize the words law, subjects or precedent and, without a very clear and compelling argument, won't look to some eighteenth century Swiss "philosopher" for instruction on how to pick a president. If you don't revise your pitch, you will be no more successful than you were in the last two elections.
Can a natural born citizen lose his natural born citizenship? Yes, or no.
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of our Founders, our Framers, those who were close to them, and (I think LITERALLY) every major legal authority of the early United States.
It's also the opinion of the US Supreme Court, virtually every major legal authority in United States history, every contemporary court, every member of Congress, and every major conservative Constitutional organization in America.
In short: Literally everybody who actually matters.
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America
"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
Between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.
They included: James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman (US House of Representatives), William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and Pierce Butler (US Senate), and President George Washington.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the RIghts of Foreigners (1838)
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution (translated):
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
I am of the opinion that you understand the question perfectly, but would rather plead ignorance than answer it honestly. It's a simple question. Where is the principle of English law that supports Subjects leaving the King?
You understand very well that there is no such principle in English Law.
If you want this country to adopt Vattelism (as it might relate to "natural born citizen") in the next election, you will need to make your pitch to the American voters and their electors.
That is a pointless effort. Far too much smoke has been thrown up to correct the mindset of the public in any short term attempt. That, and the "Smoke" has it's own defenders such as yourself.
In the twenty-first century, most folks don't capitalize the words law, subjects or precedent and, without a very clear and compelling argument, won't look to some eighteenth century Swiss "philosopher" for instruction on how to pick a president. If you don't revise your pitch, you will be no more successful than you were in the last two elections.
You are mistaken if you regard me as having any practical purpose in mind. This is entirely an academic discussion from my perspective. Trying to influence practical matters in the face of so much "obfuscation inertia", would be like trying to bail the ocean with a tea cup.
But even were I to attempt a practical purpose, the first step requires refuting erroneous understanding, so in that respect the one effort would dovetail with the other.
Playing the "Yes" or "No" game? Really?
A "natural citizen" cannot lose his citizenship through neglect. Congress cannot describe requirements for him to be a citizen. Congress CAN set the requirements for statutory citizens.
Ergo... "Statutory" < "Natural."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.