Apparently, that book was a description of the English statutes that were in force in Pennsylvania and the English statutes that in the opinion of the judges "ought to be" incorporated into the laws of Pennsylvania. The footnote that we discussed was not supported by reference to any case or Pennsylvania statute so it was probably a discussion of what the judges believed should be passed as a statute in Pennsylvania. But, whatever it was, it was not binding on the Framers of our national Constitution.
I have no doubt that Vattel had lots of fans, but I am also certain that he had plenty of critics. As I recall, he also believed it proper for a nation to prevent workers from emigrating to other countries if their labor was deemed to be important.
Because they were regarded as incompatible with principles of American law. (You will have to read further to find that out.)
The footnote that we discussed was not supported by reference to any case or Pennsylvania statute
No it was not. This is because "natural law" is not law according to statute, it is law according to nature. It would be contradictory to the concept of "natural law" to link natural law to a statute.
so it was probably a discussion of what the judges believed should be passed as a statute in Pennsylvania.
And where would they get an opinion so heavily contradictory to what the founders voted on in their own Capitol City of Philadelphia? I assure you, everyone in the legal community of Philadelphia knew what was the meaning and intent of "natural born citizen" during the convention in 1787.
It is very unlikely that anyone then present would get so terribly confused as to allow the Founders to go with English common law (which offers no protection from foreign intrigue) while all the Judges of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, and several judges of the US Supreme court went with Vattel's principles of natural law.
How reasonable is it to believe there could be such a contradictory divide on this very relevant point at that time?
But, whatever it was, it was not binding on the Framers of our national Constitution.
More like it is the other way around. The legal system of Pennsylvania, which was by far the most exposed to the ideas of the convention, modeled itself after what those founders believed and told them.
It is more like the laws of Pennsylvania reflect the laws which the founders intended for the entire nation.
I have no doubt that Vattel had lots of fans, but I am also certain that he had plenty of critics.
He is the most cited Jurist during the first 50 years of this nation's history. (According to the Supreme court in the case of UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION )
Therefore I would suggest that his adherents far outnumbered his critics in American jurisprudence of the time period.
As I recall, he also believed it proper for a nation to prevent workers from emigrating to other countries if their labor was deemed to be important.
A policy which is currently followed by the United States of America right now. Nuke physicists and other critical technology experts are very heavily controlled on their travel to foreign countries. They have to get permission from the State Department in order to do so, if they are allowed to do so at all.