The Supreme Court has also said that the term "natural born citizen" is simply an adaptation to our form of government of the English term "natural born subject." And Thomas Jefferson says they're wrong. He changed the word. It is silly to think he changed the word without intending to change the meaning.
He got the usage of the word from Vattel. Had he intended us to follow English law in defining the character as that of a "Subject" he would have used the word "Subject." He almost did, and then he remembered that we were following Vattel's natural law basis for Independence.
We got the Idea of Independence from Vattel. We didn't get it from "English Common Law", because Independence is strictly forbidden to "subjects."
And Thomas Jefferson says they're wrong. He changed the word. It is silly to think he changed the word without intending to change the meaning. Jefferson's first penning "subject," and then upon reconsideration changing that to "citizen," comports with what Chancellor Kent later wrote:
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.
Perhaps you can offer where Jefferson explained that these terms were so different, and if they were so different, why on earth he first choose a term so manifestly inappropriate.
He got the usage of the word from Vattel. He almost did, and then he remembered that we were following Vattel's natural law basis for Independence.
Nonsense. I've called you on this made-up claim not long ago. You've got no proof, yet you persist.
Plenty of writers before Vattel and after used the term "citizen." Montesquieu, who was FAR more influential on the framers of the Constitution than was Vattel, used the term "citizen" frequently. Jefferson's use, by itself, is no proof he's borrowing from Vattel.
We got the Idea of Independence from Vattel. We didn't get it from "English Common Law", because Independence is strictly forbidden to "subjects."
Again, you just make this sh*t up as you go along without a shred of support.
The Declaration of Independence traces its influences (there were multiple ones) back to the Magna Carta. James Otis (in an excerpt you're wont to highlight) cites as influences both John Locke (whom he lists first) and then Vattel.
You can stop this ridiculous assertion that Vattel was some singular influence on the American Revolution and Constitution any time now.