The “de Vattel definition†of “natural-born citizen “did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.
1. De Vattel wrote in French, not English. As such there is no evidence that the phrase “natural-born citizen†ever was a product of either his lips or pen. What he actually wrote was, “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.â€
2. The first English translation was published in 1759, in London. It translates “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…†The phrase “natural-born citizens†is nowhere to be found. And the currently intuitive “naturels†is translated to “natives,†while “indigenes†is left completely untranslated.
3. There were 3 different English editions of the work published prior to 1787 and therefore available to the Framers of the Constitution. They were London:1759, London:1760, and New York:1787. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…â€
4. Additional English editions were printed in Dublin:1792, London:1793, and New York:1796. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…â€
5. The first appearance of the phrase “natural-born citizens†appears in the London:1797 edition, and it is a translation of the French word “indigènes,†not the French “naturels.†This was ten years after the Constitution was written, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death.
6. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, the “de Vattel†definition did not exist.
7. There was a single definition of “natural-born citizen/subject†that existed in 1787 and was available to the Framers, and it was that of English Common Law. That definition was exclusively tied to place of birth, the citizenship status of parents was irrelevant.
Your argument here, to be true, would require the Framers to be capable of time travel. While they were undoubtedly gifted men, being able to rend the time-space continuum was probably among the things they were good at.
Regards,
The Dude
Courtesy of HistorianDude
You can apologize anytime.
“The “de Vattel definition†of “natural-born citizen “did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.”
The following provides a few of the many pieces of evidence that Vattel’s book, Law of Nations, was procured in French and later in English by the authors of the Constitution in 1775 and afterwards, which is long before the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. It also falsifies your nonsensical claims none of the authors of the Constitution were capable of reading French, the international language of diplomacy in the 18th Century. The Founding Fathers also left us a written record of how they actually consulted and used Vattel’s Law of Nations, which again establishes in their own words how you are propagating a pack of commonly used lies. See:
If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.
The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.†As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.
For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,†from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations†to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.â€
Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution†Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.†These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.
In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html