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.
If they are "convertible terms", why bother changing it? The normal usage was "Subject." If it makes no difference, why bother?
That he changed it was not an accident. It was a deliberate point to demonstrate that the two characters were not the same. The Declaration was informed by Vattel, and so was it's intended and deliberate usage of the word "Citizen."
Nonsense. I've called you on this made-up claim not long ago. You've got no proof, yet you persist.
The proof is in the word "Citizen" itself. I've looked up all instances of it in Shakespeare, and i've looked up all instances of it in Blackstone. The normal English usage is to describe the inhabitants of a City, not the members of a Confederated Republic of independent states. (You know, like Switzerland at the time.)
The only person of that era using that word in that context is Vattel. Even your lunatic buddies over at Dr. Conspiracy's kook site acknowledge that Jefferson borrowed heavily from Vattel in writing the Declaration of Independence. (What part of English Law does "Independence" come from?)
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.
You are not helping your case. Montesquieu was French, and wrote in French too. What was that French Standard for "Citoyenship" again? :)
Again, you just make this sh*t up as you go along without a shred of support.
No, it's demonstrable that England didn't have anything in it's common law to support the idea of "Independence." The concept was absolutely forbidden. No writer could have written about such an idea in England. He would have been arrested, and If I recall properly, Samuel Rutherford (cited in the Convention notes) got into a lot of trouble form merely hinting at it.
James Otis (in an excerpt you're wont to highlight) cites as influences both John Locke (whom he lists first) and then Vattel.
John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence. Emmerich Vattel does. No one else asserts such a right. Only Vattel. No other writer of natural law would dare say such a thing. Only Vattel.
Vattel explicitly states:
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
And that led to this:
You can stop this ridiculous assertion that Vattel was some singular influence on the American Revolution and Constitution any time now.
Find someone else of that era suggesting the United States could form a Federal Republic, and perhaps you have a point. Till then, you are just caterwauling.
If they are "convertible terms", why bother changing it? The normal usage was "Subject." If it makes no difference, why bother? To be a bit more precise and appropriate in one's terminology. As Kent notes, "citizen" is the more appropriate term when discussing a republican form of government. You're right, the habitual usage was "subject," and with some it was a case of "oh, right, I should now use "citizen." But in other instances I've shown (the Vermont Constitution of 1777, Zeph. Swift (1796), etc.) that holdover usage of "subject" persisted without seemingly anyone doing the modern-day Birther faux outrage and histrionics of "We are not subjects! We don't have a King! We fought a Revolution to cast off that term!"
Jefferson corrected his initial thought. But it's not like one term was wholly right and one wholly wrong. They were often used interchangeably in this period.
The proof is in the word "Citizen" itself. I've looked up all instances of it in Shakespeare, and i've looked up all instances of it in Blackstone. The normal English usage is to describe the inhabitants of a City, not the members of a Confederated Republic of independent states.
Well, DumbDumb, Vattel isn't "English usage." So your looking just at the likes of Shakespeare and Blackstone is a convenient (and flawed) case of selective sampling.
How about you look at someone like Montesquieu?
3. What is meant by a Love of the Republic in a Democracy. A love of the republic in a democracy is a love of the democracy; as the latter is that of equality.
A love of the democracy is likewise that of frugality. Since every individual ought here to enjoy the same happiness and the same advantages, they should consequently taste the same pleasures and form the same hopes, which cannot be expected but from a general frugality.
The love of equality in a democracy limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow-citizens. The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. 5, Ch. 3
"Democracy." "Republic." "Citizens!" Gosh, I guess Montesquieu got this all from Vattel, too, right? But, hmmm, Montesquieu isn't talking about inhabitants of a city. He must have borrowed this from Vattel. But, wait, Montesquieu published his work in 1748, about 8 years before Vattel published his. Now there's a dilemma. Wait! It must be that Montesquieu had a copy of Vattel's notes, because under your kooky theory, any mention of "citizen" not referring to city inhabitants must have come from Vattel. Right?
And how influential was Montesquieu on the Framers of the Constitution. You know, that Constitution that has the word "citizen" in Article II, the one that is under debate here?
The key principle underling that document was separation of powers. And what did James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" have to say on that point?
The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning on this point. The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn. The Federalist Papers, Article 47
On Constitutional matters, Montesquieu is termed "the oracle." But surely the writers of the Federalist Papers had glowing things to say about Mssr. Vattel. Oh, wait. Right. They don't mention Vattel at all.
Kinda shoots a big hole in your theory that "natural born citizen" derives from Vattel, doesn't it? :)
Even your lunatic buddies over at Dr. Conspiracy's kook site acknowledge that Jefferson borrowed heavily from Vattel in writing the Declaration of Independence.
A point I'm not disputing in the least. Certain phrasing in the Declaration (e.g., about attaining perfection in political union) seems distinct to Vattel. What I'm disputing is your contention that because some parts of the Declaration seem to trace to Vattel, that non-distinctive terms (like "citizen") must be taken as derived from Vattel as well. Nonsense. Nonsequittur. Pure hand-wave argument.
And this is before we get to the further problem you face that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and debated. So your assumptions get even more attenuated.
You are not helping your case. Montesquieu was French, and wrote in French too. What was that French Standard for "Citoyenship" again? :)
Hmm, let's see. We're talking about the period roughly 1776 to 1787 here. And I recall the situation in France being discussed in that case you've never read: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and
mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality." Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall's International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186. [p667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe -- de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne -- according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth.
What was the French standard for "Citoyenship," you ask? It was jus soli. :) :) And certainly the likes of Franklin and Jefferson and the other Founders and Framers who were well-acquainted with France and its citoyens knew this.
John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence.
Oh, DumbDumb, your intellectual laziness and obvious penchant for just reading and parroting things from like-minded Birthers makes it so easy to toy with you. Consider this excerpt from John Locke, a chapter entitled "Right of Revolution":
220. In these and the like Cases, when the Government is dissolved, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, differing from the other, by the change of Persons, or Form, or both as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the Society can never, by the fault of another, lose the Native and Original Right it has to preserve it self, which can only be done by a settled Legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the Laws made by it. But the state of Mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this Remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell People they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, when by Oppression, Artifice, or being delivered over to a Foreign Power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect Relief, when it is too late, and the evil is past Cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be Slaves, and then to take care of their Liberty; and when their Chains are on, tell them, they may act like Freemen. This, if barely so, is rather Mockery than Relief; and Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it, till they are perfectly under it: And therefore it is, that they have not only a Right to get out of it, but to prevent it.
This is the same John Locke that James Otis credited with "fanning the flames of Revolution."