So many absurd premises, so little time.
You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers. So you insert the meaning that YOU want, and voila, it is so. John Jay wrote a letter to the president of the constitutional convention, George Washington importuning him to insert the natural born citizen clause, even as he knew that NONE of the founders were NBC. Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was. Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review on the significance of the Law of Nations in federal common law decisions http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/729.pdf?article=1478&context=faculty_publications and another on citizenship and the Law of Nations http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html and yet another: https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/vattels-concept-of-natural-born-citizen-in-our-constitution/.
I can cite dozens more, but I know that you would just stubbornly insist that no one has ever paid Vattel any mind, no matter what you see. I place this into this thread for the edification of others who happen on this discussion.
Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel. Do not let your ignorant desire to validate Cruz obscure fact and law.
Natural born citizen has only applied to FORTY FOUR people in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US. It has constitutional applicability to ONLY ONE purpose, and that is eligibility to assume the office of POTUS. That alone should enable you to divine the true intent of the framers by simply acknowledging the unique singularity of this provision. Any other of the constitutional offices of the federal government may be assumed by being a US citizen of any other type. Your blind adherence to the cult of personality and not to the rule of law does a disservice to the brilliant foresight of the framers, and the protections that they intended Article II, section 1. clause 5 to provide to the office of POTUS and to the American people.
“You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers.”
No, that is a false summary of my argument and reality.
Because the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” — and nothing else does, either, despite your efforts to gin up one —
it is the duty of Congress to resolve any uncertainties by filling in the gaps.
It is the very lack of a definition that empowers Congress to define natural born citizen under the “necessary and proper” clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Congress has power to define who is a natural born citizen.
That is the core of the issue.
You think Congress does not have that power.
You are wrong. Congress DOES have that power.
Congress has exercised that power since 1790.
No court is ever going to tell Congress you can’t do that.
“Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. “
No, they did not. That is a total fantasy made up in your dream world.
“Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel”
No, they have not. I have searched in the legal databases.
Vattel is not considered meaningful EVEN IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, FRANCE.
Not even France pays any attention to Vattel.
“You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was”
The Venus Merchantman decision has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen. NOTHING whatsoever.
The case is about whether a citizen of England’s property can be seized as part of the War of 1812.
“Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review “
Law reviews are only OPINIONS by lawyers, usually new graduates.
The purpose of law reviews is to CONTRAST competing opinions.
The way to get published in a law review is to write something controversial that conflicts with prevailing opinion.
“Natural born citizen has only applied to FORTY FOUR people in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US. It has constitutional applicability to ONLY ONE purpose, and that is eligibility to assume the office of POTUS”
That is part of the reason why none of the precedents that people try to point to have any meaning or relevance.
The only court that has EVER decided who is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen in the history of the nation is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision deciding that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The only case in the history of the country that has ever decided this question is the one deciding that Ted Cruz is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen.
“That alone should enable you to divine the true intent of the framers by simply acknowledging the unique singularity of this provision. Any other of the constitutional offices of the federal government may be assumed by being a US citizen of any other type”
That’s why the President has to actually live in the United States for 14 years.
But curiously a President at the minimum age of 35 only has to live 14 years inside the United States.
The founders thought it was just fine for a President to live 60% (21 years) of his minimum 35 years in a foreign country.
That kind of blows the hell out of your sentimental argument, doesn’t it?
If the founders felt as you argue, why didn’t they say the president has to live all 35 minimum years inside the United States?
Why did they say it is okay for the President to live 21 years of his 35 minimum years in a foreign country?
Sort of blows your argument to shreds, don’t you think?