Well, duh, it's not like Americans invented the concept of citizen. But where you miss the mark here (again) is your facile presumption that Vattel, and Vattel alone, constituted "the foreign understanding." He didn't. The French had an understanding of "citoyen" at this time that held to a jus soli view. And persons like Franklin and Jefferson and others well-acquainted with the French would have understood this. That was in the part of my prior post you choose to skip past. And so it's a part I'm will endeavor to keep throwing in your face.
The only possible salvation for your argument is to connect the word "Citizen" to English Common law.
Since the parallel between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" was amply made both before and after the framing of the Constitution, salvation has arrived. (Hallelujah!)
Connecting it to the Roman "Republic" or Greek "Democracy" is arguing for the exact opposite premise.
Strawman argument. It's sufficient to connect it to then-existing notions of citizenship, e.g., France (you know, that country that helped us triumph in the Revolution). France at this time was jus soli.
Who cares? The Constitution did not create American Citizens.
How quickly (though consistently) you lose sight of the issue.
The Constitution is the document that uses the term "natural born citizen," which is the concept under discussion. What that term meant in 1787 is the issue. All of the stuff about who influenced Jefferson, etc., is just prologue towards understanding what NBC signified in 1787. And given that Montesquieu (#1 on the Donald Lutz study of most-cited political writers) wrote of "citoyens" (and, again, France at this time was jus soli) and given that Blackstone (#2 on the list) also espoused a jus soli view of the common law, yours is a pretty p*ss-poor argument that tries elevate Vattel (#29 on the list) and claim because Vattel (an international law writer, and citizenship is a topic of municipal law) speaks in one section of a jus sanguinis rule that such is the meaning in the Constitution.
Salvation hasn't come to you yet on this point. Nor will it.
Perhaps you should be looking in the various state conventions on ratification. They mention Vattel and his "Law of Nations" often enough.
And I'll wager they mention Montesquieu and Blackstone even more. So what's your point?
While you're at it, look him up in the actual Constitutional convention debates. He's mentioned there too.
Ditto the point above.
What you don't have in either the Convention or Ratifying debates is anyone citing to Vattel on citizenship. All you have is one great hand-wave that because you see Vattel cited on other points that he was the influence on Article II NBC.
Also, according to the Supreme Court in 1977:
"The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel."
Why are you citing to the "modern court?" According to you, the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 was "modern." You are nothing if not inconsistent.
Until you are foolishly consistent: you hauled out this quote back in 2013 when I first listed the Lutz study results, showing Vattel down around #29 on the list. Same reply as then and since: "Yes, Vattel, was cited on matters of international law, but citizenship is a matter of municipal law. So go pound sand." (I've by now given you at least 3 sources to substantiate this distinction; yet you remain clueless).
And silly bird, you think the Constitution still has something to do with the creation of American citizens. Nope, that was settled 11 years earlier, according to Justice Joseph Story.
I'd act aghast that you cannot possibly be this dishonest (or this stupid) as to hold up Joseph Story on this point, but you've got a long track record of pulling these stunts.
Right. This question was settled 11 years before, and Story lays out the rule with absolute clarity. If only you weren't such a dishonest slob by omitting the portions preceding the sentence you quoted, this would be clear:
That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
(Did you notice how Justice Story connects "citizen" with English common law? Hallelujah! :) )
Story lays out the same rule enunciated by Z. Swift 8 years after the Constitution was drafted. And the same rule enunciated by St. George Tucker a few years later. And by Chancellor Kent. Oh, and, yes, after Kent comes Wm. Rawle. Plus, Chancellor Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Plus, the 39th Congress (which affirmed the "existing law"). Plus, the SCOTUS.
You're dishonest because you truncate quotes to make the writer appear to support you when he doesn't. (You did the same with James F. Wilson, House Jud. Chairman in the 39th Congress).
You're an idiot, because I corrected you (and MamaTexan) back in February when you were having your little go-round about how it was nice to have someone as illustrious as Joseph Story in your camp. You don't learn.
(Now, explain to me how it is I'm being shredded? :) )
The French had an understanding of "citoyen" at this time that held to a jus soli view.
Yeah, I looked that up. That appears to have started in 1515 by Royal Decree, and ended with the Napoleonic code in 1802. Presumably the older and subsequent understanding based on Roman law was jus sanguinus, but you can have your trivial little point. It doesn't greatly impact the larger point of whether or not the citizenship created by the Declaration of Independence was informed by Vattel.
Since the parallel between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" was amply made both before and after the framing of the Constitution, salvation has arrived.
Commensurate does not mean "equal." That one thing can be compared with another does not make them the same. The deliberate and intentional change of the word "Subject" into "Citizen" is pointless unless one postulates an intention to change the meaning and character as well.
Social inertia would have us continuing to use the word "Subject." Changing it to "Citizen" was deliberate and intended to represent a change in the relationship between the Governed and the Government. It was not innocuous or a whim.
What that term meant in 1787 is the issue.
No it isn't. The root of the meaning of "natural born citizen" does not lie in 1787. It comes from an earlier time. By 1787, it appears obvious that everyone already knew what it meant, and so therefore it had already been established. Court records and common sense point to 1776 as the date on which American Citizenship, as distinct from British Subjects, was created.
The US Constitution did not create citizens. The Articles of Confederation did not create citizens. The Declaration of Independence is what created citizens, therefore the meaning of the word "citizen" must be derived from the natural law principles informing the Declaration.
There is nothing in the Declaration supporting English Common law. The very document is an explicit rejection of the English Common law premise of "Divine Right", the legal and moral basis on which the Jus Soli nature of English Subjects is founded.
And I'll wager they mention Montesquieu and Blackstone even more. So what's your point?
To rebut your ignorant and stupid point that because you didn't find Vattel mentioned in the Federalist papers, he has no significance. Don't you remember your own ignorant and stupid points that you put forth?
Why are you citing to the "modern court?" According to you, the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 was "modern." You are nothing if not inconsistent.
I have no trouble believing modern courts can search through files and figure out how many times someone has been cited. That is a comparatively simple task, but as far as getting "original intent" correct after a hundred or more years, they have had a very poor track record.
You are once more demonstrating your level of idiocy in comparing the one thing to the other. It is the sort of childish argument that you make a habit of putting forth.
What you don't have in either the Convention or Ratifying debates is anyone citing to Vattel on citizenship. All you have is one great hand-wave that because you see Vattel cited on other points that he was the influence on Article II NBC.
Because at the time it was considered to be such an insignificant and trivial detail that no one saw the need to discuss it at any length. They all knew the Declaration created citizenship, and they were all well aware of the natural law foundation of it. It wasn't debated because it was assumed they were all in agreement, and weightier things needed to be discussed.
And again, you are once more ignoring the fact that your stupid @$$ made it a topic by noting that you didn't see Vattel in the "Federalist Papers." If you thought it so important as to mention the "Federalist Papers", you can now take your stupid lumps for having it pointed out to you that he was mentioned in a context more significant than that one you seemed to think was relevant.
I'd act aghast that you cannot possibly be this dishonest (or this stupid) as to hold up Joseph Story on this point, but you've got a long track record of pulling these stunts.
You are so predictable. I knew when I did that you were going to go back and get the rest of his quote. I originally put the whole thing in there, but I told myself "Captain PounceTrifle" will ignore the larger point, and focus on that tiny bit which he will try to warp into agreement with his position."
I then thought, "Wouldn't it be cute for me to leave that out, and watch the little snake go get the rest, just so he CAN ignore the point made in my quote?" (That Justice Story specifically acknowledges you can be born in this country without being a citizen.)
You are dancing to the strings I pull, you stupid ignorant little puppet! Ha ha ha ha ha...
Story lays out the same rule enunciated by Z. Swift 8 years after the Constitution was drafted.
And he immediately points out that it doesn't work like that in the case of a child born in the US to British citizens. This is doubly damaging to your claim, because he's one of the ones you claim to be on your side.
You can run your big mouth all you like, but Story is telling you that a Child who's parents owe allegiance to another nation, is *NOT* an American citizen.
This is where the G**D@mn collection of liars on your side always go. You take ambiguity in the specifics of the general rule (that someone born here is generally a citizen) and you push way past a common sense understanding of the meaning into a technicality based sophist assertion that this is the only thing required.
Story is bitchslapping your stupid theory in a very clear and precise way. He is directly contradicting your assertions.
Of course anyone who is not a f***ing idiot, knows that we had something like 100,000 British Loyalists and their Children who remained British Subjects after 1776, because the "born on the soil" rule did not actually apply. They retained loyalty to the allegiance under which they were born, not Allegiance to the Nation owning the Soil under which they were born.