I brought in Locke last year and presently as rebuttal to your point that Vattel was the only writer speaking of a right of revolution. (Your words: ""John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence" and "Indeed, the very ideas of "Revolution" and "Independence" comes from Vattel, and no one else." )
These claims by you show remarkable historical ignorance. When it came to writers serving as an impetus to the Revolution, Locke was The Man. I even cited a source noting Jefferson himself credited Locke (along with Algernon Sidney) as being "the most important thinkers on liberty."
I wasn't claiming "citizen" came from Locke. I don't need to.
So on the right of revolution and liberty, Vattel wasn't some unique source or inspiration.
On the use of "citizen," Vattel wasn't some unique source or inspiration (Rousseau, who was also highly influential on Jefferson's Declaration) wrote of citizenship.
And so we chose to follow the writers that used the word "Citizen".
As to the Revolution itself, English writers were the more significant.
As to citizenship, we did employ the word "citizen" (though often using it simultaneously and interchangeably with "subject"), but in drafting the Constitution we employed the English common law term "natural born" and applied it to "citizen," thus signifying that the English birth-rule which had to that point applied to "subjects" now applied equally to those we call "citizens."
This is not that complex. And pretty much everyone speaking on the point after 1787 viewed it in those terms.
Okay, so i'll bite. Did Rousseau define citizenship? Did he explain what it was, rather than say what rights citizens ought to have?
Yes. Rousseau saw the citizen as a member of the political community, which conferred a legal status entitling such to civil rights and attendant benefits and obligations. And he saw the citizen as being an active member in the democracy through political involvement. His major work ("The Social Contract") goes into these ideas in-depth.
In the absence of a Rousseau definition, it seems eminently reasonable to do so.
You need to show where Jefferson defines "citizen" in the Declaration and then show how that so uniquely matches Vattel that one can say the one derives from the other. In the absence of that demonstration, it seems all you're doing is hand-waving again.
I have an Ace.
What you have rather is more of a flush -- sampling bias, tunnel vision, anachronism, question-begging, and inconsistency -- all drawn from the same suit of falsity and fallacy.
For some reason, the movement to independence didn't pick up any speed until 1764, coincidentally, after Vattel's book had made it over to the Boston debate club.
Oh, gosh, here I thought all these years 1764 and 1765 were significant because that's when England imposed the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, thereby pinching the Colonists' pocketbooks and starting that whole "no taxation without representation" thing. It was because Vattel's book was published? Whoodda thunk it?
Your take on history continues to amuse.
Yes, we should all hinge our understanding of history on the flattering deference that one politician gives to another on the House floor.
My point goes much deeper than that. Nice try, though.
Wilson, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, gave a legal report to the House, containing legal citations and authorities. (He was a bit the Jack Maskell of his day, though as elected representative and Chairman his work carried with it an even greater status. Wilson was the guy YOU once cited, dishonestly truncating his remarks to make him sound like he held to your view. (Remember that one? Or should I link your post?) Here (again) are selected portions of his floor remarks:
This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume, would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word "white." In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of this House who believes that this Government is exclusively a "white man Government." I think this question of sufficient importance to justify me in giving it something more than a mere passing notice. Blackstone says:
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of Englnd: that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it." Sharswood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.
The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."
* * *
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 - 1117 (1866).
And there is John Bingham, who (under your supposition holds to very different view on "natural born citizen") simply sitting and hearing all this without offering the least bit of objection?
Nah. That's a totally fatuous read on the legislative history. The far better view is that Bingham had no reason object, because Bingham very clearly and succinctly espouses the same view:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)
What Bingham says and what Bingham's "learned friend" James Wilson says align perfectly.
Yeah, he clarified his position earlier. It rebukes yours.
Oh, oh, oh, this is "fall out of my chair with laughter" time.
You are claiming that earlier remarks "clarify" later remarks? Was he sooth-saying in 1866? No, DumbDumb, that is exactly backwards. A person's later views can only be taken to clarify or modify earlier views. But the past does not clarify the future.
And you simply fail to understand Bingham's earlier statements, forcing an unnecessary (and unexplained) conflict with both his House colleagues as well as Senators Trumbull and Howard, the draftsmen of the citizenship clauses of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, respectively.
Do you need for me to explain Bingham to you again?
And posted above is Jus Sanguinus, Vattel based Natural Law, straight and clear out of the mouth of John Bingham.
No, it isn't. Bingham doesn't require that children be born to parents who are citizens. He omits that key part of your view of Vattel.
The difference between your position and mine is that my position can incorporate yours, but your position cannot incorporate mine. John Bingham easily lives within the framework of my position.
Your position doesn't fit what Bingham says:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)
Bingham says "every person born within the limits of the Republic is a natural born citizen." You say "only persons born to parents who are citizens (or whose father is a citizen) is a natural born citizen."
There is no way you can harmonize your view with his words.
By contrast, I have no problem with harmonizing the words of Bingham you keep hopping up and down about. Because, unlike you, I don't read into his words "born of parents who are citizen."
A sh*t I do not give about the consequences of a state court ruling under the premise of "default" law.
When that state court is cited with approval within both the Congress and the SCOTUS, then you should care. But whether you personally care or not, the case does much to sink your entire theory.
The premise being that State Law modifies Federal Law. No thanks. It requires too much brain damage to accept that premise.
Fat Tuesday was yesterday, and today your Straw Man should be packed with a bit less straw by now.
No one makes the claim state law modifies federal law.
I probably considered the question so ignorant as to be unworthy of reply. Come to think of it, I still do.
Read: "You've stumped me again, and I don't have an intelligent reply, so I'll just stomp my feet and whine a bit."
They should have applied American Common law.
And in 1844, what "American Common law" case should Sandford have cited and applied? You're sounding rather Apuzzo-esque here. I predict a big fat "zero" of a reply here: you will be able to cite no applicable "American common law."
Uh, yes you do. Since the entire discussion revolves around the origin of American usage of that word, you do have to link it to Locke to make Locke relevant to the discussion.
On the use of "citizen," Vattel wasn't some unique source or inspiration (Rousseau, who was also highly influential on Jefferson's Declaration) wrote of citizenship.
Rousseau was from Geneva. He was also Swiss. Your example is knocking holes in the bottom of your argument. You need to start bailing water. :)
but in drafting the Constitution we employed the English common law term "natural born" and applied it to "citizen," thus signifying that the English birth-rule which had to that point applied to "subjects" now applied equally to those we call "citizens."
And that is a non-sequitur. Had the intention been to apply the English birth-rule, there would have been no need to change terminology. The word "Subject" works just fine, it is well known by all parties, and people had been using it all their lives.
No, they deliberately chose to use the word "citizen" in an effort to establish that the nature of the relationship between individual and state had changed from that of "servant" to that of a free man. Usage of the word "citizen" was a deliberate rejection of the feudal based claim on their servitude implied by the term "subject."
Yes. Rousseau saw the citizen as a member of the political community, which conferred a legal status entitling such to civil rights and attendant benefits and obligations.
That is dodging my question. The question was whether Rousseau defined the term. But since I see that he was Swiss, I no longer have any concerns regarding how he might have defined the term. I am confident he regarded it to be the same as did Vattel. No doubt they were bumping into each other around Neuchatel.
You need to show where Jefferson defines "citizen" in the Declaration and then show how that so uniquely matches Vattel that one can say the one derives from the other.
No I don't. I only have to show that the origin of Jefferson's usage of the word defines it, and I believe I have done that quite effectively. Jefferson's source for the usage appears to be from writers in the Swiss Confederacy. The only Republic in the world at that time. :)
Oh, gosh, here I thought all these years 1764 and 1765 were significant because that's when England imposed the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, thereby pinching the Colonists' pocketbooks and starting that whole "no taxation without representation" thing. It was because Vattel's book was published? Whoodda thunk it?
The Monarchy had imposed harsh measures on their subjects in times past. The contemplation of independence was something new.
Wilson was the guy YOU once cited, dishonestly truncating his remarks to make him sound like he held to your view.
Speaking about someone dishonestly citing something, you do that quite a lot with this assertion. I cited Wilson from websites where he is cited in support of that claim. I admitted that I did not look his words up in the Congressional Globe, but merely relied instead on work that others had done without checking.
You keep bringing it up as if there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, (as if anyone could with a public record) instead of just laziness in checking primary sources. As I told you at the time, I'm not really putting out much effort in responding to you. The real battles on this subject were years ago, and you missed them. I don't really consider you to be a worthwhile opponent, and I no longer consider the issue very much worth discussing. It has pretty much lost any relevance to the real world at this point because the idiots have spoken.
It is now just an academic discussion and an occasional pastime as far as i'm concerned. But if there is anyone in this discussion being deliberately deceitful it is you and your dishonest characterization of what happened regarding James Wilson in this past discussion. I gave you Wilson a long time ago, yet you still attempt to hang on to Bingham even though you honestly can't.
You should stop being dishonest about this, and a number of other things as well.
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)
And here is that example of you once again trying to use a general statement to ignore specific and articulated exceptions. Once again, I point out to you that Bingham had previously expounded on his specific understanding regarding that general statement. (1862)
All other persons born withing the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
And he did it again:(1866)
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
And he did it again:(1872)
That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.
Oh, oh, oh, this is "fall out of my chair with laughter" time.
Perhaps you should see a doctor. Sounds like you are about to have a psychotic break.
Do you need for me to explain Bingham to you again?
You'll have to do it the first time before you can do it again. I'm not going to hold my breath.
After your Bingham nonsense, i'm not going to read or respond to the rest of your little psycho party.