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.
I've been over all this before. (see what happens when you are a johnny come lately?) William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1787 that ratified the Constitution.
Samuel Robert's Legal education comes from William Lewis. You might remember him as one of William Rawle's co-counsels in the Pennsylvania freedom trials.
I will also point out that Philadelphia was the US Capitol when the US Constitution was written, (Declaration too.) so the legal community of Philadelphia probably has a better understanding of it than those of any other US City.
Pennsylvania also had a constitution that was written by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, et al, and that contained therein the exact same Vattel based Jus Sanguinus measures as are being discussed.
Beyond that, you sort of gloss right over the fact that Samuel Robert's book prominently displayed the names of all the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania, and attributes the information contained therein to their work. Roberts book was widely used throughout the Pennsylvania legal community.
Do you believe for a moment that this would pass unnoticed unless the information contained therein was correct?
It's not like Supreme Court Judges know how to sue anybody or issue "orders" or anything.
You really don't have a consistent argumentative bone in your body, do you?
And here you are once again accusing me of being "inconsistent", when demonstrably I am not. Samuel Roberts has direct provenance to a ratifying convention delegate. Vattel is even mentioned in the debate regarding the rights of a citizen.