Posted on 02/02/2016 4:36:59 PM PST by 11th Commandment
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
William Lewis was also an Abolitionist. The difference between him and William Rawle was that he did not attempt to fool himself about what law applied in the United States, and specifically in Pennsylvania.
William Lewis worked with Rawle on a number of unsuccessful abolition cases in Pennsylvania.
"RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES."
"...That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person be a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in, its service from that period to ye time of his election."
A similar proposal for senators was made during the Constitutional Convention but voted down after James Wilson objected. He argued that he was helping to draft the constitution but under the same document he would be prohibited from serving in its government (he was born in Scotland). I suspect that was the main reason for the grandfather clause.
“And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.”
Like Hillhouse and Ellsworth, he was a Connecticut lawyer and his book is on the laws of Connecticut.
Ellsworth - “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”
Ellsworth was a Framer and a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
As for scenario #2 [Congress making everyone in the world natural born], yes. Congress can make it so that anyone is eligible to be President. That is, until, via the amendment process, a limitation is placed on Congress's authority.
Your interpretation would mean (before the 14th amendment and after the grandfathered generation passed) that Congress could have kept the presidency vacant by passing a law that defined everyone as "naturalized", and that Congress alternatively could (then and now) functionally eliminate the "natural born citizen" requirement by defining everyone in the world as a "natural born citizen" (of the U.S.).
I understand that you interpret the naturalization power broadly, but to me such extreme breadth makes no sense. Specifically, it makes no sense to me to suppose that the Constitution must or should be interpreted to give Congress such great power over the executive branch merely as a consequence of the specific grant to Congress of the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization.
The founders used the framework of specific enumerated powers to limit the authority of the central government. If each of the enumerated powers are interpreted so broadly as you advocate for the naturalization power, it seems the enumerated powers would have little or no limiting effect.
and of course Madison waxes eloquently on the topic.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s10.html
Ellsworth - "The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution."
He is of course right in a sense, but not wholly right. Most of the common law was continued in the United States, but parts that were completely incompatible with the new national character were eliminated, such as "corruption of blood" or Primogeniture.
As a matter of fact, the Pennsylvania legislature instructed their Supreme Court to wade through English law and inform them which parts of English law remained in effect and were consistent with the new national character.
I have read that other states did the same thing.
They hadn't yet got the message. :)
“Fwiw, the term given for this type of naturalized citizenship is ‘acquired’ not ‘derived’. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.”
___________________________________________________
Thanks for that. I wonder why no one else cares or even can see what seems to me to be so obvious: Cruz is the eGOP version of the obozo. This assault on the Constitution is completely beyond politics or party affiliation, yet no one else saw fit to commented on your remark.
It was a post of yours about a month ago that first brought this SCOTUS case to my attention, so I went and looked it up and lo and behold, Bellei is nearly an exact proxy to Cruz. Their parallel lives diverged after four plus years when the Cruz family moved to the USA, but natural born Citizenship status is set at birth, so that is of no consequence to the implications of Bellei to Cruz.
Also, the SCOTUS did not define natural born Citizen as part of their holding in Rogers v. Bellei, but that also is of no consequence because they DID find that Bellei, whatever he was, had no natural right to USA citizenship and, thus, by implication, was NOT a natural born Citizen. The consequences of this holding to Cruz are as clear as they are devastating.
Cruz obviously knows he is not eligible, yet it is clear that he does not care and is willing to lie about it, just as he is willing to lie shamelessly about his opponents and ride the back of Jesus in order to win votes. The man is despicable. He is a smarter, more conservative version of aka obama. No candidate is perfect, but Cruz’s flaws of character are downright frightening.
Both Trump and Carson have standing with the courts — I sure hope one of them brings the Bellei case to the court’s attention.
There are many cases that state and use the principle that born-abroad is naturalized, as if that can't be gleaned from the words of the constitution.
I'm not surprised at all that people overlook the law.
Or, rather, like many who lived in that period, Swift better understood than you do that "subject" and "citizen" were largely just interchangeable terms, both simply designating a person's membership in the political society. In this regard, he anticipates Justice Waite (an opinion you've cited):
There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165, 166 (1875)
It's time you give up your silly "he didn't get the memo" line. There are SO many exceptions you end up having to explain away by that lame rejoinder (like, e.g., an entire state legislature) that the better view is that there was no "memo" to start.
Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.
The case which was resolved when Madison had James Monroe send a letter explaining McClure was a citizen by virtue of having been born in South Carolina -- while making NO mention at all about his father's status? This is supposedly some great example of the importance placed on father status?
Give it up. It's a feeble argument.
the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep,
In the absence of any clear statement of what they intended on this point, we are left primarily to go by what words they utilized. "Natural born citizen" (the Constitutional term at issue) is recognized as deriving from its ECL counterpart "natural born subject." Had the Framers had Vattel in mind, the appropriate term would have been indigenes, because that's the term Vattel used, and the English translations up through 1787 all retained the English cognate "indigenes."
or to jettison because of it's incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence.
Do you need another lesson on how John Locke spoke of natural law and the right of revolution? You continue to beg the question by assuming there's only one natural law philosophy in view here espoused by only one person.
(And, btw, I once asked you if Southern State secession in 1861 was licit given your premise that our Nation was founded upon Vattel's theory of a perpetual union of states. You never answered. It's slightly off-topic, but far less so than the gay marriage question you asked me (which I answered). So I'm asking again.)
And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.
And neither were any of the persons you cite (like Samuel Roberts). And no one who was a convention delegate or member of a state legislature can be demonstrated to support your view to the exclusion of the alternative. The best you've managed is to show that Vattel was mentioned in the state ratifying debates. But he wasn't mention on citizenship, so big whoop.
In the scope of a Nation's history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word "Citizen." The word "Subject" (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.
An earlier draft contained a sentence in which "subject" was initially penned and later changed to "citizen." Jefferson's initial instinct was to choose "subject," but then upon reflection realized "citizen" was the more appropriate term (see Waite above). So the association between the terms is proven even there.
It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
Or, rather, it was a recognition that with the republican form of government "citizen" was simply the more appropriate term and the change put needed psychological distance between the King and the new society.
But the point remains that come 1787, "natural born citizen" bears a linguistic similarity to the common law "natural born subject" in a way it does not to what Vattel had penned. Bear in mind that by 1787 seven states had adopted common law reception statutes (NY, PA, MA, VA, DE, and NC). The common law nomenclature was part of the legal and statutory parlance. It's fatuous to conclude that "natural born citizen" was understood outside that common law context, when it was the ONLY context in which the term "natural born" had previously been utilized.
it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain,
It's time you give up your silly "he didn't get the memo" line.
And yet weren't you and 4Zoltan citing how Massachusetts continued to use the word "Subject" up till 1798?
.
.
The case which was resolved when Madison had James Monroe send a letter explaining McClure was a citizen by virtue of having been born in South Carolina
Bait and switch. That the case was later resolved, (and not for the reason you state) is irrelevant to the point that Madison did not resolve it earlier in accordance with his statement in the William Loughton Smith affair.
Madison chose not to resolve it. He knew very well who James McClure was, and knew intimately of the details of McClure's doings in France since 1807. Madison was very well acquainted with McClure. He chose not to interfere with Armstrong's decision regarding McClure.
And no, the case was not resolved because " a letter explaining McClure was a citizen by virtue of having been born in South Carolina ". It was known from the very beginning that McClure was born in Charleston. It was never in any doubt whatsoever among any of the participants.
The sole question of McClure's citizenship hinged upon whether or not the laws of South Carolina recognized a child born to a foreign father prior to his naturalization, as a citizen.
Congressman Langdon Cheves and Supreme Court Justice William Johnson met with Monroe and presented him with sufficient documentation to prove to his satisfaction that the laws of South Carolina did recognize the children born there of a non-naturalized foreign father as citizens.
"the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States."
But Madison could have resolved the issue in an instant if he really believed what he said at the William Loughton Smith hearing. He didn't.
But getting back to Langdon Cheves for a moment, He was speaker of the House in 1814 and 1815, and this is what he said on the house floor while in Congress:
But you have previously been informed of all this.
.
.
is recognized as deriving from its ECL counterpart "natural born subject."
Not recognized by anyone of significance during the founding era. Recognized by post hoc "experts" years after the fact. In other words, people who do not know what they are talking about, and who insist on repeating hearsay opinions from other people who do not know what they are talking about.
Again, I have noticed that the word "citizen" does not seem to be acknowledged in English common law. Perhaps you can find an English law dictionary that contains the word? I've looked at three, and I haven't found it in there anywhere. All English law seems to be familiar with is "Subjects." You know, those things we ceased to be when we declared independence.
.
.
Had the Framers had Vattel in mind, the appropriate term would have been indigenes, because that's the term Vattel used, and the English translations up through 1787 all retained the English cognate "indigenes."
The Founders didn't use the English Translations. They read it in French from the 1758 editions, and those subsequent 1775 Charles Dumas supplied editions. (Also in French.)
The title of Chapter 19 is:
"Des citoyens et naturels"
The pertinent line of the chapter says:
"Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
.
.
Do you need another lesson on how John Locke spoke of natural law and the right of revolution?
Show me where he used the word "Citizen", and I will concede the point. :)
.
.
And, btw, I once asked you if Southern State secession in 1861 was licit given your premise that our Nation was founded upon Vattel's theory of a perpetual union of states.
My opinion is that if it were licit to revoke "perpetual allegiance" to England, then it must also be licit to revoke a "perpetual confederacy".
The argument in the Declaration is that it is an inherent right of man.
.
.
And neither were any of the persons you cite (like Samuel Roberts). And no one who was a convention delegate or member of a state legislature can be demonstrated to support your view to the exclusion of the alternative.
Not True. Two prominent people involved in the ratification of the US Constitution, (indeed, who worked directly with Madison in an effort to obtain ratification in Virginia) explicitly support the Vattel Position. John Marshall, and Bushrod Washington.
Both clearly cite Vattel as the model followed by the United States.
But the clearest evidence that Vattel was the source is in the Declaration of Independence. Even your Dr. Conspiracy and Fogbow buddies concede that the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by Vattel. I have read that Jefferson's (who was fluent in French) personal copy of "Droit des Gens" is littered with his handwritten notes on the Declaration of Independence.
And then there is that pesky word "Citizen." Now the word did exist in the English language, but was not often used, and generally used in the sense of being a member of a city. City-Zens, as in City-Denizens.
Well the eight cantons of the Swiss Confederacy began in 1351. They used the word "citoyen" to describe the members of a larger confederacy of member states. Hmmm.... Anybody else using the word in that context in the following centuries?
.
.
Or, rather, it was a recognition that with the republican form of government "citizen" was simply the more appropriate term and the change put needed psychological distance between the King and the new society.
Psychological, rather than a paradigm shift? Even with the examples of the Swiss Republic and the prominent Natural Law philosophy as outlined by Vattel?
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.
No, the evidence indicates to the contrary. I think your insistence in trying to apply the foundation of law that we overthrew is itself indication of a problem that is "psychological."
.
.
Bear in mind that by 1787 seven states had adopted common law reception statutes (NY, PA, MA, VA, DE, and NC).
Bear in mind that the vast majority of the common law has nothing to do with citizenship. It is the vast body of law dealing with mundane civil matters, (Wills, Marriages, Divorces, torts, crime, etc) not esoteric or abstract points of natural law philosophy.
For nearly 100% of everyday court cases, the common law is relevant. For matters of national character of which the public seldom has any traffic in, it is irrelevant.
And as has been pointed out to you before, many of the states undertook to identify distinctions between the "common law", and what would hold sway in their own states.
I also do not care. Obozo broke the rule, so now it would be foolish of us to insist that it bind us.
One side playing by the rules while the other flaunts them is a guaranteed way to lose.
Yes. My point being that all these state legislators failed to see this grand distinction you're trying to make between "subject" and "citizen." So either all of them were negligent on this point or else your theory is misplaced.
Oh, and it's not just the Massachusetts legislative acts that continued to use the term "subject." Here's Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:
"Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship."
And who was the principal author of this document? John Adams. Are you going to claim as well that Adams -- who served on the Declaration Committee and was the one urging that Jefferson write it -- likewise "didn't get the memo" that the paradigm shift had occurred and that "subject" was now simply an unthinkable term to use in reference to U.S. persons?
And then there's Justice Joseph Story, who in his concurrence in Inglis v. Trustee's of Sailor's Snug Harbor wrote:
With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. 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. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.
John Adams didn't get the memo. Joseph Story didn't get the memo. Zephaniah Swift didn't get the memo. The Mass. Assembly didn't get the memo. Etc., etc.
There was no memo. Give it up.
Madison chose not to resolve it.
And that may be for any number of reasons. This was a political matter, not a legal declaration. Which is why it is somewhat disingenuous to refer to this as the McClure "case," as if that carries the same significance as a legal decision. It's cited in the eligibility discussions only by Vattel-birthers. No historian or legal scholar thinks it has the least significance on the topic.
Congressman Langdon Cheves and Supreme Court Justice William Johnson met with Monroe and presented him with sufficient documentation to prove to his satisfaction that the laws of South Carolina did recognize the children born there of a non-naturalized foreign father as citizens.
And if the letter to the Virginia newspaper from "Publius" is taken as accurate, whereas Virgina had a statute on point making citizens of all white persons born within the state, it appears S.C. did not. So if the law in S.C. permitting a child of an alien to be a citizen at birth existed, it of necessity had to be via . . [drum roll] . . . the common law under the principle of jus soli. Right?
But getting back to Langdon Cheves for a moment, He was speaker of the House in 1814 and 1815, and this is what he said on the house floor while in Congress:
He speaks about perpetual allegiance. Not birth citizenship. Your position notwithstanding, these concepts aren't joined at the hip. If Cheves believed South Carolina law followed Vattel, then he couldn't be making the point that under S.C. law McClure was a citizen since it was acknowledged his father had not naturalized at the time of his birth.
Not recognized by anyone of significance during the founding era.
Again, another of your special pleading arguments: no one of significance during the founding era espoused a Vattel-like rule.
Again, I have noticed that the word "citizen" does not seem to be acknowledged in English common law.
So what? It was a change in nomenclature that was effected, not a change in substantive principle. French law acknowledged the term "citizen" and France during our founding period adhered to the jus soli principle. Your pointing to the word "citizen" doesn't establish your proposition.
Again, this has all been pointed out to you before. You just pretend it doesn't matter.
All English law seems to be familiar with is "Subjects." You know, those things we ceased to be when we declared independence.
Ceased, except when John Adams, a prominent lawyer, is writing a state constitution in 1780 still using the term "subject" to refer to U.S. person. Facts are stubborn things, ain't they?
The Founders didn't use the English Translations. They read it in French from the 1758 editions, and those subsequent 1775 Charles Dumas supplied editions.
And the French doesn't employ the term "natural born citizen" under any reasonable rendering. The terms used are "naturels" (always translated as "native") and "indigenes" (which till that point had remained just "indigenes"). Again, the "natural born citizen" was a term steeped in the nomenclature of the ECL and which had previously been used in interchangeable fashion with "natural born subject." That the Framers would select that term and employ it with a DIFFERENT meaning -- while making zero mention that is what they were doing -- is an highly implausible read on history.
Show me where he used the word "Citizen", and I will concede the point. :)
This is ridiculous. Before the Revolution the Colonists were "subjects." Locke is writing about the right of "subjects" to revolt. And you're trying to play dumb here and act like Locke doesn't apply because Locke didn't use the term "citizens?" Seriously?
I love pushing you on these points, because you deliver up these laughable blunders. This is a good one.
John Marshall, and Bushrod Washington.
Neither of whom says that Vattel furnishes the rule on birth citizenship in the U.S. I've beaten you senseless on this point more times than I can count. Like a zombie that will not die, this ghastly caricature of an argument yet remains.
the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by Vattel.
Right. Just as Jefferson's view expressed in the Declaration of happiness being the rightful end of mankind is seen to derive from Burlamaqui's views on natural law. But the hand-waving, non-sequitur element of your argument is assuming that because the Declaration was influenced in some respects by Vattel, that "natural born citizen" in Article II of the Constitution (written 21 years later when Jefferson was in France) derives from Vattel as well. For the person who prides himself on his (often mistaken) grasp of logical fallacies, you fail to see this one.
Anybody else using the word in that context in the following centuries?
It was used in France to convey the sense of the people comprising the nation. And it came (then) with a jus soli principle associated with it. Franklin was ambassador to France. Apart from England, it was the nation best known to the Founding Fathers.
Putting this one at the end, somewhat by way of Appendix:
My opinion is that if it were licit to revoke "perpetual allegiance" to England, then it must also be licit to revoke a "perpetual confederacy".
That begs the question whether "perpetual allegiance" was ever established as a principle of our U.S. society. It was from earliest times a matter of dispute, which was finally answered in the negative around the 1850's, iirc. But you're claiming Vattel's idea of "perpetual confederacy" was the essential blueprint for our nation. If so, then you would have to conclude Southern secession in 1861 was illicit. But you don't. Once again, your ad hoc, inconsistent arguments show through.
Judging from your posting history, it's about time for you to give up, no?
The fact that they ultimately ended up using the word "Citizen" is pretty good proof that they weren't keeping up prior to 1798.
Oh, and it's not just the Massachusetts legislative acts that continued to use the term "subject." Here's Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:.
July 4, 1776 was just a little over three years before the Massachusetts Constitution was drafted. It uses the word "Citizen" 17 times, maybe Adams was breaking the public in to the usage of the word.
Beyond that, the doings in Massachusetts are not directly relevant to the foundation of National law.
And then there's Justice Joseph Story, who in his concurrence in Inglis v. Trustee's of Sailor's Snug Harbor wrote:
You are citing a guy born in 1779 regarding what the founders meant by "natural born citizen"? Don't you have anything a little closer to relevant?
Which is why it is somewhat disingenuous to refer to this as the McClure "case," as if that carries the same significance as a legal decision.
You are right. Madison's actions are far more significant than what some ignorant judge from decades later thinks about anything. Madison was ground zero for the US Constitution, and his actions speak far more eloquently and with greater authority than do the words of any two-bit judge.
Yes, it carries far more weight than a legal decision.
No historian or legal scholar thinks it has the least significance on the topic.
Seeing that most of them want to look for meaning in 1898 instead of 1776, i'm not surprised that they ignore it. They are ignorant, and intent on engaging in confirmation bias, and nothing else.
He speaks about perpetual allegiance. Not birth citizenship.
To which "subjects" must adhere, while "citizens" get to choose. Again, he points out that he regards Vattel as the legitimate authority on issues of this nature.
If Cheves believed South Carolina law followed Vattel, then he couldn't be making the point that under S.C. law McClure was a citizen since it was acknowledged his father had not naturalized at the time of his birth.
Is this too complicated for you to grasp? The child (McClure) was given derivative citizenship after the fact. A derivative citizen is still a citizen, albeit naturalized. I don't recall anyone alleging McClure to be a "natural" citizen. Being just a citizen is good enough to get him released.
The point is, he wasn't made a citizen as a result of his birth, he was made a citizen as a result of his father's naturalization.
But look here. Were your theory right, it wouldn't have taken over a year to get a result. If the standard of that time was universal citizenship for anyone born here, every single person in Washington D.C. would have said so. Indeed, everyone in the Nation would have said so.
It wouldn't have taken consultations with Congressmen and Supreme Court Judges to inform Monroe as to what the basic law was in this matter.
Again, another of your special pleading arguments: no one of significance during the founding era espoused a Vattel-like rule.
Well there's Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong, Marshall, Washington,(Bushrod) and I think St George Tucker, among others. Madison too if you count his government's actions in the case of McClure.
Who you got? Rawle? Yeah, not impressed.
French law acknowledged the term "citizen" and France during our founding period adhered to the jus soli principle. Your pointing to the word "citizen" doesn't establish your proposition.
That there is no pretense that we used any bit of French law as the foundation of our Country (they were a monarchy too) is pretty good evidence that the only remaining source of the term is the source of our national foundation.
Ceased, except when John Adams, a prominent lawyer, is writing a state constitution in 1780 still using the term "subject" to refer to U.S. person. Facts are stubborn things, ain't they?
So are foolish consistencies which are the hobgoblins of little minds. That "subject" continued to be used for a bit does not revoke the point that the concept of "citizen" was not derived from English Common law, but was instead derived from Natural Law as espoused by Vattel.
Again, had the founders intended for there to be no distinction between the two, they wouldn't have bothered changing the word.
And the French doesn't employ the term "natural born citizen" under any reasonable rendering.
This is why I hate arguing with you. This point was rebutted in the message to which you are responding. You simply ignore it, and make your assertion anyway.
It doesn't get much clearer than the title of Chapter 19:
"Des citoyens et naturels"
That the Framers would select that term and employ it with a DIFFERENT meaning -- while making zero mention that is what they were doing -- is an highly implausible read on history.
Non Morons might get a clue from the change in terminology. Things which are self evident do not normally require explanation. Vattel was dominant in the last half of the 18th century. His was the single most cited work on natural law cited during this period according to the Supreme Court.
And you're trying to play dumb here and act like Locke doesn't apply because Locke didn't use the term "citizens?"
There is no playing dumb here, you are deliberately restating the premise as being focused on Locke's writtings on "revolution" and not the word "citizen." This isn't dumb, it's corrupt. It is dishonest, and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the point by substituting a different one in it's place.
Locke did not use the word "citizen", therefore our usage of the word "citizen" is not related to Locke. "Locke" is your effort at a "red herring."
Neither of whom says that Vattel furnishes the rule on birth citizenship in the U.S.
Both of whom explicitly say so. If we cannot agree on demonstrable facts, then there really is no point in bothering to argue with you.
Right. Just as Jefferson's view expressed in the Declaration of happiness being the rightful end of mankind is seen to derive from Burlamaqui's views on natural law.
Irrelevant to the point regarding the word "citizen". This is more of your "chaff."
But the hand-waving, non-sequitur element of your argument is assuming that because the Declaration was influenced in some respects by Vattel,
Such as putting the entire idea into their heads in the first place.
that "natural born citizen" in Article II of the Constitution (written 21 years later when Jefferson was in France) derives from Vattel as well.
Are you slow? US Citizenship was created by the Declaration of Independence. The Foundation of the Declaration of Independence is Natural Law, as informed by Vattel. 11 years later, (not 21) it still meant the same thing it did in 1776. That Jefferson was in France in 1785, (again, not 21 years later) is irrelevant to the point. This is more of your chaff.
For the person who prides himself on his (often mistaken) grasp of logical fallacies, you fail to see this one.
From my perspective, you have been disambiguated, skinned, and hung out to dry.
Apart from England, it was the nation best known to the Founding Fathers.
And again, a nation who's foundation we clearly did not follow in creating our own national character. This is just your "Locke" argument by another approach.
That begs the question whether "perpetual allegiance" was ever established as a principle of our U.S. society.
...
But you're claiming Vattel's idea of "perpetual confederacy" was the essential blueprint for our nation. If so, then you would have to conclude Southern secession in 1861 was illicit. But you don't. Once again, your ad hoc, inconsistent arguments show through.
If it is accepted that Vattel meant that the Confederacy ought be perpetual, than that is one thing. (His preference) If Vattel meant that the principles of natural law required the Confederacy to be perpetual, then that is another, and it is also a thing that is very inconsistent with what he was advocating in Revolution.
It is contrary to logic to argue that you have a natural law right to leave a King, but do not have a natural law right to leave a body of people. Therefore it would appear that the inconsistency is in Vattel, or more likely how you are interpreting his meaning, and not with me.
But i'm not surprised you can't seem to grasp these sorts of distinctions without someone's assistance.
Interesting, its a sticky subject for sure. I think that we are treading on dangerous ground by allowing the broadening of the definition of natural born citizen to move away from two citizen parents on American soil(or out of the country on the Nation’s business).
Some will argue that citizen at birth is the same, which my reading of the Constitution, Founder’s documentation and court decisions doesn’t support. So whether we use semantics to state that the citizenship is present at birth and recognized later or whether the conditions of citizenship are deemed to have been met and citizenship awarded, doesn’t really change the fact that that kind of citizenship is not Natural Born citizenship which is citizenship conferred naturally since no other citizenship was possible for the individual.
As desperate arguments go, that is a good one.
Face it, Adams's using the work "subject" in a formal document like a state constitution, blows a huge hole in your "they didn't get the memo" argument. Yes, "citizen" was the predominant term (as it should be in a republic). But the continued use of "subject" shows that, despite your claims to the contrary, no one then was seeing this as some Vattel-driven change. (See comments of Michael Ramsey, infra).
You are citing a guy born in 1779 regarding what the founders meant by "natural born citizen"? Don't you have anything a little closer to relevant?
And in the next breath you'll cite to Samuel Roberts, a guy born in 1769 who published a work in 1817, who wasn't a Convention member (nor were any of the other judges). You really don't have a consistent argumentative bone in your body, do you?
Don't you have anything a little closer to relevant?
I have Swift, Kent, and Tucker. The former two being persons who are actually cited within the historical and legal scholarly community and courts as being credible sources of the original rule.
Your sources? No one EVER has cited them.
That sums up in a nutshell the difference in our positions and authorities.
Madison's actions are far more significant than what some ignorant judge from decades later thinks about anything.
But only in your mind.
You're like one of these odd-ball characters one encounters now and then in theological discussions. Someone who comes up with some novel theory based on Scripture verses or obscure sources no one else has ever found relevant on that point. When one points out that the theory is crack-pot for that reason, the response is the same as yours: just keep tossing out the same irrelevant verses and theory.
You are your own authority. Big deal.
Seeing that most of them want to look for meaning in 1898 instead of 1776, i'm not surprised that they ignore it.
Au contraire. The Michael Ramsey article I cited upstream on this thread cites to Swift, the Masschusetts naturalization acts, Madison, and St. George Tucker. Goodness, it's like the guy has been reading posts here.
The child (McClure) was given derivative citizenship after the fact. A derivative citizen is still a citizen, albeit naturalized. I don't recall anyone alleging McClure to be a "natural" citizen.
McClure was issued an American passport by the American Minister in London "confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S." "Native" means "from birth," not "later and derivative." And James Monroe sent a letter to James Barlow in France simply attesting that McClure was born in Charleston since the Revolution, while, again, making no mention of his father's subsequent naturalization. Your assertion this proceeded on the basis of derivative citizenship is very questionable.
The point is, he wasn't made a citizen as a result of his birth, he was made a citizen as a result of his father's naturalization.
Then why did McClure get a passport based on his being a "native born" citizen? And why did the Monroe letter make no mention of his father's naturalization if such was supposedly the key to establishing McClure's claim?
In short, as I've pointed out to you before, the McClure case is too ambiguous to be of merit. I can credibly claim it establishes jus soli for the above reasons.
Were your theory right, it wouldn't have taken over a year to get a result.
Equally so, the 1802 Naturalization Act provided for derivative citizenship for children upon the father's being naturalized, and it was accepted from about the time McClure was taken captive that his father had long since been naturalized. So under your theory, it shouldn't have taken a year to resolve either.
The ambiguity of the "case" is probably best viewed in the context of the politics among England, France and the U.S. during the Napoleonic Wars. We were shortly to go to war. McClure for whatever reason seems not to have been the highest priority.
Well there's Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong, Marshall, Washington,(Bushrod) and I think St George Tucker, among others.
Just stop. These persons are "there" only in your self-deluded mind. None of them support your view that the law in the U.S. bore some imprint of Vattel. They are cited by NO ONE in support of that proposition; not even by persons (e.g., Chief Justice Fuller) who are urging the Vattel rule). Prof. Ramsey states the rejoinder succinctly:
Vattel might be thought to have a closer connection to the eligibility clause's text and context. . . . . The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear – as clear as we can be about these matters - that no widespread public connection was drawn.
You're an exemplar of "pure speculation." Your sources don't prove what you claim for them. You simply see things that aren't there.
It doesn't get much clearer than the title of Chapter 19: "Des citoyens et naturels"
"Naturels" was understood to mean simply "natives." Your faulty leap comes when you have to make that be "natural born citizen." "Natural born" is a term characteristic of the ECL, not Vattel. Again, you simply see what you wish to see and overlook the logical gaps.
There is no playing dumb here, you are deliberately restating the premise as being focused on Locke's writtings on "revolution" and not the word "citizen."
You're moving past doubling-down on the stupid to tripling-down.
Here the focus isn't (and can't logically be) on the word "citizen," because Locke is writing about the right of subjects to revolt, and he is being read by person who then were "subjects." The point being that it's pretty damn hard for you to hold up Vattel as some singular or predominant inspiration for the Revolution when the same writers (e.g., James Otis) are attributing that inspiration to Locke at the same time!
Now, meditate on that and try to be less daft the next time.
No it doesn't.
The Declaration itself was a huge "Vattel-driven" change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.