I pointed out that 1) in the early U.S. the terms "NBS" and "NBC" were in many cases used interchangeably, and, therefore, it's proper to understand the meaning of the latter in light of the understood meaning of the former, especially as to the means and scope of obtaining that status (i.e., birth circumstances) and 2) the early Americans used these terms interchangeably (e.g., Vermont Constitution of 1777) without thereby engaging in your silly notion that they must thereby have understood when they referred to their fellows as "natural born subjects" that they thought there was some "king of Vermont" having jurisdiction.
So your reply is simply to double-down on the silly and offer that same argument of a necessary "president - king."
You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."
And there is a point to this? They did have a King, and then they didn't. Subsequent referral to "subject" was custom and habit. Thomas Jefferson himself, while writing the Declaration of Independence, wrote the word "Subject", then rubbed it out and wrote the word "Citizen" over the top of it. Once again, you have some sort of point?
The point is that "natural born subject," insofar as who at birth attained to that status had a well-understood meaning. And that meaning, as to any concern regarding alien parents, was summarized by Blackstone, the undisputed foremost commentator on the Common Law ("The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. ")
And so (point as to "first principles" continuing) it defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.
So my point is that you are proposing an historically indefensible idea (certainly one that needs give way to the overwhelming counter evidence) and that the "argument from authority" you deride (excepting the far fewer authorities you favor) is easily explained and defended from the historical/legal record.
Anyone with intellectual honesty would recognize that the founders would vehemenently reject the philosophical basis for being a "Subject" as opposed to being a citizen.
And yet they used the term "natural born subject" as to themselves without the supposed "philosophical objection" you (in your manifestly last-principle, result-driven approach) project back to deny the fact I keep whalloping you across the the side of your denialist head.
Sir Michael Foster:
Nothing in what you quote from Foster negates in the least what I quoted from Blackstone, to wit: ".The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. "
So, again, you offer NOTHING to indicate that when in 1787 the Framers chose the term "natural born citizen" they understood "natural born" to require some different birth circumstance than "natural born" meant when modifying "subject." Zero. Zippo. Nada. The proof exists only in your head.
Your little group of deludees will simply argue that Blackstone's "generally speaking" qualifier obviously refers to the children of Ambassadors and such,
With good reason. Blackstone references "Calvin's Case," which set forth that rule with those exceptions. And the SCOTUS in WKA -- looking at multiple English authorities -- concluded the same.
It further ignores the point that the stratified English Society might have REFERRED to Native born Alien Children as "Natural Born Subjects" (Meaning The King has a claim on their servitude) but in practice they treated them quite differently from those born to English Parents, and they most certainly DID NOT allow them to rule England.
And in yet another chapter of "Consistency is Not DL's Strong-suit" you will in the next breath dismiss Rawles by asserting he was "too British trained." Amazing that Rawles was corrupted by too much English training yet got to the same jus soli rule for "natural born citizen" without any notion of some hierarchical, middle state.
It's a game of a Whack-a-Mole with you.
For Civil and Criminal law. For International law? (The only body of law which actually deals with citizenship.)
Here's where you flaunt your ineptitude on legal matters and broadcast it with trumpet fanfare.
Citizenship is a matter municipal (domestic) law! . ("municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired" See, e.g., Perkins v Elg.) I am aware of no exception stated by anyone at any time to the rule that every nation by its domestic law determines its citizenship. C.J. Marshall is citing to Vattel because he is an authority on international law. But citizenship is a matter not of international law, but of municipal law.
So see if you can grasp this:
1. Citizenship is a matter of domestic law.2. Blackstone was the foremost authority on domestic common law.
3. Therefore, on the domestic law matter of the meaning of "natural born citizen," who does logic dictate is the authority? Blackstone? Or Vattel?
Here's a further help for you: Alexander Hamilton tells us "look to the law from where our Constitutional terms originate. That's England.
"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.
Au contraire, it is my insistence that they DID NOT insist on equivalency in every respect
Then you should give up the silly talk about "kings." The "birth status" rule was the same as between NBS and NBC, without the Americans having to import the full complement of ideas pertaining to "subjects."
But why did they use "natural born subject" if they understood NO lingusitic/legal connection to the English understanding of NBS? What else could they possibly have meant if not the same birth status rule? Again, this is another hole in your position that you attempt to toss up a bunch of flak to hide.
Stick to engineering.
Meh.