The Principles of English Subjectude are incompatible with the creation and existence of an Independent American state. The English version of "natural law" holds that allegiance to the Crown is everlasting.
Yes, i'd say that's being pretty fair to the Principles upon which British law is based.
.
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.
I think I have suddenly realized what is the salient aspect of our difference of opinion. It boils down to Flexibility versus Rigidity.
I, and others like myself, believe the meanings expressed in our founding document are Cast-Iron Rigid. We believe that they cannot be changed by a simple act of congress, nor can they be changed by a declaration of a Judge. They can only be changed by resort to the Amendment Process to include ratification by the states, because a nation needs a rigid foundation upon which to base it's laws.
The contrary position is that our constitution is a "living" document, and it's words must be interpreted in light of the ever changing nature of society. As a consequence, Congress can change the definition of "natural born citizen" at it's whim, and courts can interpret it to mean that any sort of citizen is exactly like the explicit class of citizenship the founders desired to avoid foreign influence in the Executive.
So there it is. We the "Originalists" vs the "Living Constitutionalists."
I will point out though, that the "Living Constitution" position is the Liberal position.
.
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!
Funny you should mention Ann Coulter. She doesn't seem to agree with the idea that people should get citizenship from just being born in our country.
I think there is an issue of breadth that can (and should) be distinguished from flexibility.
Breadth; I interpret the NBC term to include more persons than you do. In that sense, I am interpreting it more broadly than you. You are interpreting the NBC term more broadly than someone who might require that both of a NBC's parents be citizens by birth or that all four grandparents be citizens.
Flexibility: The flexibility of a Constitutional provision concerns the degree to which the provision forces a future interpreter to make principled choices when applying the provision. The provision requiring that a Senator be 30 years old is much less flexible than the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Once a person's age in years is known, then people will more or less unanimously apply the age requirement in the same way. There will be much more disagreement between reasonable people as to whether a particular search is unreasonable even when everyone agrees to the facts surrounding the search. Those who drafted the Senate age requirement were not trying to create a standard that allows for much flexibility. Those who drafted the Fourth Amendment knew that they could not accomplish their purpose (protecting individual privacy) without affording future decision-makers a greater range of flexibility. And, that difference will explain why there are literally thousands of cases involving the reasonableness of searches under the Fourth Amendment and few (if any) cases involving the Senate's age requirement.
My Interpretation: My interpretation of the NBC clause to require only citizenship at birth indicates that I interpret the clause more broadly than you do. My interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon my firm belief that ordinary people now and ordinary people in the 18th century would find that interpretation to be a more natural interpretation of the clause. I believe that my approach conforms to Justice Scalia's admonition (which I quoted in post 362).
Your Interpretation: Your more narrow interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon your research and discovery indicating that some of the most influential folks in the founding generation looked to Vattel for guidance as to theories of citizenship (coupled with your English translation of his French text).
As I've said before, I'm not saying your interpretation is more right or wrong than mine. It's just more narrow.