[DiogenesLamp]

I have only one thing to say to you:

"Les naturels, ou indigines, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens."

Yes, the language is French, and much has been made of the fact that it isn't English, but let me ask you this. Which is more important, the language, or the principles?

We KNOW what were the English Principles. That a man is born owing eternal allegiance and servitude to the King. The language is familiar, but it is this PRINCIPLE which is FOREIGN to the American form of Government.

But what of Republicanism? Where were the examples of it? What nation was represented by a Republican form of government at this time in History? Only one, and that nation was Switzerland. It too was founded on Rebellion against a Monarchy.

If we wished to follow Monarchy, we could easily have looked to the English Model, but we chose to follow the path of a Free Republic, and so we looked for guidance from a writer who hailed from the only Nation on Earth which was an independent Republic. Of COURSE the ideas of Vattel would have to come from Switzerland. Everything else was Monarchy.

The language the ideas were written in was French because French was the language of Diplomacy. Vattel intended a wide distribution for his Principles of Natural Law, and to accomplish this, it needed to be written in French.

The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?

[Tau Food]

The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?

The way you have framed the question - why, you're just bent way over backward trying to be fair about this, aren't you? ;-)

I pick . . . DOOR NUMBER 3!

If the text of the Constitution expressly limited the meaning of natural born citizen to persons born on our soil to citizen parents, then I would repudiate here and now any Ted Cruz presidential candidacy. But, I have an unshakable faith that Jacob Shallus exercised the utmost care in preparing my instructions precisely as the Lord directed.

To me and (I firmly believe) to most other ordinary people living now or living in the 18th century, the most natural construction to be given to the term "natural born citizen" is that it is the equivalent of citizen at birth. And, the Framers, either intentionally or inadvertently, said nothing in the Constitution to forbid that very foreseeable and very natural construction.

So I am happy to report that I will join other ordinary citizens like Ted Cruz (Havard Law) and Ann Coulter (Michigan Law) in concluding that the Constitution does not forbid me from supporting Ted Cruz in 2016!