Replies

When I noted that Long had failed to mention Vattel, it was not to suggest that he rejected it, but instead to suggest that his research was such that he probably never found it. That's why I suggested that you probably know more than he did about the subject.

Long was a Democrat, a partisan with political ambitions of his own. His motives for raising questions about the eligibility of the Republican nominee in an election year are probably no more complicated than that. But, then, maybe partisanship is the only reason that anyone has ever become interested in this NBC issue. ;-)

Believing as I do that the NBC standard is a constitutional standard to be applied by constitutionally-selected electors free from any interference by our national judicial or legislative branches, I don't look to the Congress or to the federal courts for authoritative guidance as to the precise meaning of the standard. The Supreme Court has never even considered overruling the decisions of electors. For good reasons, the justices limit their participation to just showing up for the inaugural celebrations and helping with the oaths of office.

When I noted that Long had failed to mention Vattel, it was not to suggest that he rejected it, but instead to suggest that his research was such that he probably never found it.

Well, according to the Supreme court in the case of UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION (1978)

The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826).

I decided to look up James Kent's book. (Jeff cites James Kent as one of his supporters, but then he cites EVERYONE as one of his supporters.) Kent does indeed seem to claim that Vattel was dominant during this era. (There are 34 references to Vattel in his book, and only 6 for Blackstone.)

I'm kinda thinking that it is a stretch to believe Breckenridge Long was not aware of Vattel. Once again, I can only conclude that he regarded knowledge of Vattel as so commonplace that he saw no need to mention it. This is no different from discussing a point of English law without mentioning Blackstone. Everyone already knows Blackstone is an authority.

Assailing his motives does nothing to undercut his actual argument. Do you have a critique of his argument?

Electors are not constitutional scholars. The nation is ill served by having ignorant Electors, and those who ought to be responsible for informing the electors as to the correct requirements, are themselves misinformed due to a false conflation of the term "citizen" with "natural born citizen". This misinformation can be traced directly to the inimical effects of the badly interpreted precedent of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

Too many people have simply equated the Wong ruling as meaning "Born a citizen = "Natural citizen", when in fact, the Wong decision rests expressly on the power of the 14th amendment.

Once again, natural citizens existed prior to the 14th amendment, and have no need of it's existence to BE natural citizens. They are a distinct class from those citizens who are only citizens as a result of the 14th amendment. (Anchor Babies, and then only as a result of a defective interpretation of the 14th amendment.)