I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. This week, President Obama went even further with the announcement of a new sweeping exemption that not only has no foundation in the federal law but directly contradicts the law. It also happens (again) to be a change debated but not accepted by Congress. The exemption appears an effort to blunt growing criticism of Obama for a false assurance given to citizens before the enactment of the ACA. It is also coming at a time of new polls indicating that Obama is not only hitting a record low in popularity but Republicans appear poised to gain seats in both houses (and potentially could retake the Senate as well as add seats in the House). [Update: The White House is now denying that it will implement the hardship exemption despite the article in the Wall Street Journal and other media]
The individual mandate has long been the most controversial part of the ACA. That controversy magnified after millions of people lost their insurance plans despite assurances from Obama that no one would be forced to give up plans that they like. Even the Washington Post declared the statement to be false and a case of consistent and repeated misrepresentation.
The political damage over the ACA is clearly growing. That damage was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of the rollout by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her staff. Such political costs of federal law however are not a basis for regulatory changes, even when such changes are allowed under the federal law. In this case, the President has far exceeded any plausible claim of statutory or regulatory authority. The individual mandate is the heart of the ACA and was the subject of heated and careful drafting. There is no provision for an exemption, but Obama has now rewritten much of the act with a series of extra-legislative changes — no fewer than 13 such executive changes to the law.
This last change will allow virtually anyone to avoid the individual mandate requirement — precisely the option that the White House successfully blocked when proposed in Congress.
The new change would allow individual to claim a “hardship exemption” to avoid paying a penalty for not buying insurance. That would fundamentally change the operation of the law. Not only does this contradict the law but the Administration fails to clear define what a “hardship” would be. It only says that such an exemption can be claimed if citizens “experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.” It seems designed to allow the maximum number of people claim the exemption, particularly given the rather forgiving standard that the person should “submit documentation if possible.”
The President continues to operate well off the Madisonian map — inventing exemptions and granting suspensions where no provision is made under the law. Most importantly, he is ordering changes proposed and rejected in Congress.
These changes are unlikely to receive serious judicial review if past cases are any measure. The Administration has repeatedly relied standing challenges to block review. Since the Rehnquist Court, standing has steadily shrunk to the point that constitutional violations are now being left unreviewed for lack of standing. The courts have long been, in my view, absent without constitutional lead as discussed in prior testimony (here and here and here).
Democrats continue to enable this shift of power to the Executive Branch with no concern for the changes that they are making to our balance of power. They continue to yield power to the Executive Branch even as evidence mounts that they are headed to a possible electoral disaster. It is the ultimate example of personality overwhelming principle. It is not just incredibly short sighted but self-destructive. A future president can easily claim the same inherent authority to suspend or grant exemptions to environmental or anti-discrimination law or suspend tax burdens for the top one percent. It would also mean that a president is virtually unlimited in being able to amend or suspend laws. It makes the legislative process merely a discretionary stage for presidents.
The animus toward the Republicans is blinding Democrats to the implications of what President Obama is creating in this new uber presidency. The President is appealing to that animus in taking these steps and aggrandizing power in his branch. It is part of “all is fair and love and politics” approach to constitutional law. It would take offline the stabilizing elements of the system and reduce the system to little more than raw muscle plays by politicians. Under our current system, there is only so much harm that any branch can do if it remains within the constitutional lines. It is designed to be idiot-proof and we have truly tested that design. However, once one branch goes outside of the lines, the system is left as little more than politics at any means.
While there will be many who applaud the latest insular change either for its political or practical benefits, it will join a troubling mosaic of unilateral and unchecked executive power. There will come a day when people step back and see the entire mosaic for what it truly represents: a new system with a dominant president with both legislative and executive powers.
Re: “It is irrefutable that a higher level of citizenship, presumably the highest, is required for the highest office.”
Answer: NO question about it, senators and congressmen can be mere naturalized citizens. Presidents cannot be naturalized citizens and can only be Natural Born Citizens. ALL children born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats are Natural Born Citizens.
Re: “If the Founders used Vattel’s thesis without attribution based on a new understanding, they meant parents.”
Answer: Yes, IF they used Vattel’s thesis. But (1) they did not say that they used Vattel’s thesis; (2) they did not use Vattel’s thesis in other things such as a state religion; (3) they did not mention Vattel AT ALL in the Federalist papers; (4) they never gave a single example in any of their writings that they were using Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents; (5) they used many examples of the common law in the Constitution and always referred to it with praise in the Federalist Papers.
Re: ““Natural born” is NOT “natural born citizen.” One was of the past and one was of the future. There is not necessarily a connection between the two. You arbitrarily and deliberately commingle these completely different phrases. ”
Answer: IF one was of the past and one of the future in the eyes of the writers of the US Constitution, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT. If there was no relationship between the Natural Born in the common law that they were familiar with as LAWYERS (and they were mainly lawyers and justices), and Natural Born Citizen, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT—and they didn’t.
Re: “Vattel’s definition may well have been perceived as…”
Answer: Under strict construction interpretation principles, you are not allowed to make such inferences.
Clause 5: Qualifications for office[edit]
Beginning of the clause in the 1787 document
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen at adoption” is that one has parents that are citizens and the other does not. Ergo, the requirement for President is parents (plural).
Clearly there are different levels or degrees of citizenship. A lesser degree or level of citizenship is sufficient for the office of Senator and insufficient for President. It is irrefutable that a higher level of citizenship, presumably the highest, is required for the highest office.
The Founders perceived a need for a rising citizenship requirement commensurate with the rising level of office. The Founders learned from Vattel, if no where else, that “parents” was the highest. The highest requirement was included in the most advanced form of the phrase “natural born” which was “natural born citizenship.” Vattel’s definition may well have been perceived as the most contemporary with the highest, most contemporary requirement which was parents.
It seems we’re at an impasse.
“Natural born” is NOT “natural born citizen.” One was of the past and one was of the future. There is not necessarily a connection between the two. You arbitrarily and deliberately commingle these completely different phrases.
The Founders did not say one or two parents. They used the new phrase, “natural born citizen” which many current sources attribute to Vattel and his Section 212 clearly states that parents constitute the requirement. Your argument is with those sources, one of which is Wikipedia. Something led many sources of history to believe that Vattel originated the phrase, “natural born citizen.” You disagree. It seems that if you are correct and that other sources are wrong, you would oppose them and prevail, yet they persist. Apparently, your authority exists only on web pages and not in the halls of academia. It would be inordinately more effective and appropriate for you to effect the elimination of these erroneous historical accounts if possible.
You are stating that you know what the Founders meant by deduction, not by the presentation of direct evidence. If the Founders used Vattel’s thesis without attribution based on a new understanding, they meant parents. It is entirely plausible that they employed a new paradigm in their history making endeavors.
It appears that the Founders “understood” that the phrase they used constituted a zero, one or two parent requirement. The should have used the well worn, according to you, phrase, “natural born” but they used the groundbreaking “natural born citizen.” Somehow, they used a phrase that many attribute to Vattel which clearly required two parents.
The Founders studied Vattel and Vattel required parents (plural). The Founders studied contemporary thinking and must have incorporated it to some degree. As you theorize, it may be theorized that the forward thinking and revolutionary Founders broke with tradition and incorporated the newest ideas which would have included Vattel’s. The Founders did NOT literally require zero or one, they presumed the requirement existed in the phrase and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” had an extant requirement of “parents” (plural) which we know to be two.
Somehow it is difficult to believe that the American Revolutionaries and Founders were going to continue on in the old ways without variation…that they were impervious to change.
Re: “And yet refer to parents (plural) is exactly what Vattel did.”
Answer: Yes, Vattel may have thought that having parents (plural) who are citizens is what Natural Born Citizen means. But that is not what the writers of the constitution meant. They disagreed with Vattel on other things and they did not mention his “two citizen parent” idea in any of their writings, nor did they ever use Natural Born Citizen—or even just Natural Born—to refer to parents, only the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to birth in the country. And they did not mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers AT ALL, while they mentioned the common law about twenty times and always with praise.
Re: “…the ver batim phrase “natural born citizen” which current presentations attribute only to Vattel….”
Answer: Well then they are wrong. The phrase was used first IN ENGLISH by John Jay, an expert in THE COMMON LAW, who if he were using the phrase any differently than Natural Born was used in the common law, would have said so—but he didn’t.
Re: “You continue to digress into “state religion”
Answer: That is to counter your nutty idea that the writers of the US Constitution adopted all of Vattel’s ideas simply because he was one of the many books that they read.
Re: “The facts are that the Founders, as did the contemporary legal community, not only possessed but studied the “Law of Nations”
Answer: Yes, some of them did. But they read and studied other things too, an they got their ideas from many sources. Since the writers of the US Constitution did not accept Vattel’s idea about a state religion, there is no evidence that they accepted his two-parent idea either, and they certainly did not say that they did, nor did they give examples in their own writings of ever using Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen any differently than Natural Born was used in the common law—to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Re: “We can easily infer that great change was inherent in that historical inflection point….”
Answer: You are not allowed to infer based on strict construction conservative legal principles. That rule holds that if a law or the constitution does not say something, it does not mean it. And it certainly does not say—nor do any of the writings of the framers—that two citizen parents (or even one) are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. And the most common use of Natural Born at the time, by far, was in the common law, which referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, and included even the children of foreign citizens as Natural Born. That is also the way that Tucker and Rawle, who were friends of the members of the Constitutional Convention, used the term. IF the writers of the Constitution had really followed Vattel or wanted two (or even one) citizen parent, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—-and they didn’t.
And yet refer to parents (plural) is exactly what Vattel did.
You infer, infer and infer. You have no spread sheet of the specific and precise cognitive activity of the Founders. You offer no direct evidence because you have no direct evidence. The best evidence is the ver batim phrase “natural born citizen” which current presentations attribute only to Vattel and the Founders; to the “Law of Nations” and the Constitution.
You continue to digress into “state religion” which reminds me of the historical account, the “Bible,” which concludes with a tale of ethereal resurrection into heavenly, mystical realms. Undoubtedly.
Please, let’s deal in facts without reliance on subjective inference.
The facts are that the Founders, as did the contemporary legal community, not only possessed but studied the “Law of Nations” with the “parents” (plural) requirement and they employed precisely the same phrase that is currently attributed to Vattel by other authorities. It is also a fact that the Founders were making history in terms of governance as was Vattel. We can easily infer that great change was inherent in that historical inflection point. Why would we expect or infer anything less than an overturning of traditional practices?
Re: “Centuries after his death it was found that United States President George Washington had a number of overdue library books dating back over 221 years. One of them was The Law of Nations.[1][2]
Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:[3]”
Answer: NO question about it, some of them did read Vattel—but, once again, they read other books too, and they did not accept Vattel’s recommendation for a state religion—so they did not for sure just accept everything that he suggested. So, for us to believe that they used Vattel’s definition, which meant a switch away from the principle of jus soli that they were familiar with to the jus sanguinus used in Switzerland and France WITHOUT TELLING US THE THEY WERE DOING IT and without a single example of them ever using the term Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents——is laughable.
Laughable, loony, nutty.
Re: “possibility if not probability that the Founders were entirely familiar with and embraced the “Law of Nations.”
Yes, they read that book, but then they read a lot of other things too, and they did not accept the idea that we should have a state religion, so why should any rational person think that they accepted Vattel’s two citizen definition (rather than the far more commonly known definition in the common law) WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE THAT THEY WERE USING IT?
SMStrauss,
A google search consistently produces the “Law of Nations” with “natural born citizen” requiring parents (plural). Below are references with attribution that place the “Law of Nations” squarely at the birth of this nation.
With all due respect, you have produced no evidence, much less the best, to contradict the possibility if not probability that the Founders were entirely familiar with and embraced the “Law of Nations.” It seems your task is to remove all the published historical references to the relationship between the founders and Vattel’s ideas. Your argument is not with me, it is with fraudulent publishers or history itself.
Your indirect, circumstantial and peripheral data is voluminous and you have a keen grasp of it, however, it proves nothing in light of the numerous opposing sources that establish unequivocally, in the era, the prominence and acceptance of Vattel’s “natural born citizen” requirement for parents (plural). Yours is not even the worst evidence, it is not evidence at all.
You are adept at changing the subject, such as your irrelevant obsession with Vattel addressing theocracy, to expend time as you evade the question. There is but one issue and that is were the Founders familiar with Vattel and his definition of citizenship which required “natural born citizenship,” ver batim, with parents (plural) as citizens. You’ve discussed, “friends,” Natural Born and state religion to deliberately digress and obfuscate.
The question is “natural born citizen,” it’s origin, why the Founders used it and their familiarity with it. You have not proved that they didn’t read it, know it in those words and that they didn’t, ultimately, use it, perhaps without revelation which they may have deemed unnecessary. It seems, like the 2nd Amendment, there were many things they thought all parties understood and accepted without mention.
There are many multiple sources for Vattel’s “natural born citizen” with the parents (plural) requirement, the following are from Wikipedia:
Centuries after his death it was found that United States President George Washington had a number of overdue library books dating back over 221 years. One of them was The Law of Nations.[1][2]
Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:[3]
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.
Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”.[4]
It provides at least a partial legal basis for modern conscription in the United States.[5] In the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), upholding the Selective Service Act of 1917, the court stated:
It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations, book III, cc. 1 and 2. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.
Re: “OK. Allow me to take another leap of stupidity and ask what you mean by “friends” regarding Tucker and Rawle – do you mean every electron of cogitation was automatically conveyed to Tucker and Rawle and vice versa, by whom, the Founders, the Writers, whom? Exactly how close were these “friends?” Was there a regulation that the thoughts of Tucker and Rawle and the Founders had to be exchanged and those events reported. You’re making statements that you haven’t proved. ”
Answer: You think that maybe BOTH of them were wrong? Well, then explain why there isn’t a single quotation from any member of the Constitutional Convention—or from John Jay or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, all of whom were leaders at the time but not in Philadelphia—that EVER uses Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. They only used Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law—to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Re; “Was, then, the phrase “natural born citizen” coined by Tucker and Rawle? ‘
Answer: Since both of them were discussing the CONSTITUTION, which you can see yourself if you look at the names of their books, they got the phrase Natural Born Citizen from THE CONSTITUTION. In contrast, John Jay—an expert in THE COMMON LAW—used the phrase before the Constitution. And, duh, he never said that he got the phrase from Vattel. BTW, I have noted several times, but you never noticed, that (1) the writers of the Constitution ignored several things that Vattel recommended, such as a state religion; (2) Vattel’s book itself never says that the leader of a country should even be a citizen, much less a citizen with two citizen parents.
Re: ” And you haven’t explained why no entity has challenged the nearly 200 year old translation of Vattel that quotes him as writing “natural born citizen” that currently exists, for example, on Wikipedia.”
Answer: The translation MIGHT be right—but, guess what, when they translate the US Constitution into French, they never use the word “indigenes” as the translation of Natural Born Citizen. Or, it may be wrong. IF it is right, it is simply VATTEL’s idea of what a Natural Born Citizen should be, not that of the writers of the US Constitution. If they had said that they agreed with Vattel on the matter—-and NONE of them ever did—-that would be different. But they didn’t.
Re: “When you finally establish that all parties referred to herein became, at a minimum, familiar with Vattel…”
Answer: As I said, SOME were, but they read other things too, and they did not accept all that Vattel recommended, such as a state religion.
So the notion that they accepted Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen has nothing going for it. Not a shred of a hint of evidence, and there are the writings of Tucker and Rawle and the fact that Vattel was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers and the fact that no member of the CC ever used the terms Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents that go against that notion.
OK. Allow me to take another leap of stupidity and ask what you mean by “friends” regarding Tucker and Rawle – do you mean every electron of cogitation was automatically conveyed to Tucker and Rawle and vice versa, by whom, the Founders, the Writers, whom? Exactly how close were these “friends?” Was there a regulation that the thoughts of Tucker and Rawle and the Founders had to be exchanged and those events reported. You’re making statements that you haven’t proved.
Was, then, the phrase “natural born citizen” coined by Tucker and Rawle?
To be clear, you are the one who broached the subject of “translation” or mistranslation. And you haven’t explained why no entity has challenged the nearly 200 year old translation of Vattel that quotes him as writing “natural born citizen” that currently exists, for example, on Wikipedia. You persist in ad hominem attacks against me when the alleged culprits are the likes of Chitty. You have failed to establish your prevalence over the that ilk. At this point it’s a he said, she said.
When you finally establish that all parties referred to herein became, at a minimum, familiar with Vattel, you will be compelled to admit that they assimilated a new definition of “natural born citizen” that required two parents as citizens which would have placed this idea in the collective consciousness and put it in play, which may have been deliberately and surreptitiously insinuated into the Constitution for reasons we will never know precisely. You cannot prove otherwise, I presume.
Re: “the Founders may very well have meant that a “natural born citizen,” from that point forward, would have been defined as having parents (plural) as citizens, which would have been consistent with people who were setting the foundations of an entirely new form of government, with great expectations, and attempting to insure against any negative influences from foreign allegiances (precluded somewhat by requiring two parents as citizens), using the newest ideas in contrast to those that were 300 years old. ”
Answer: IF they had done that, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.
It’s not allowed under strict construction to “read into the constitution” something that you think MAY have happened. If they did not say, “we are not using the common law, we have switched to Vattel,” they did not switch to Vattel.
Re: “direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.” It does not exist in English common law or Blackstone’s writings..”
No, but Natural Born did.
It takes a leap, a leap of stupidity, to think that the writers of the US Constitution translated Vattel’s French word “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen” and then used that translation—AND never told us that they did that. They were mainly lawyers, familiar with THE COMMON LAW. They got the meaning of Natural Born from the common law. IF they had gotten it from anywhere else, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.
There is nothing “verbatim” about “indigenes.” The fact that a translator ten years later said that that French word meant “Natural Born Citizen” is a COINCIDENCE.
And we know that the writers of the US Constitution did NOT accept other things that Vattel recommended—-such as state religion—so there is no evidence that they accepted his idea about parents either. Moreover, their friends Tucker and Rawle used Natural Born Citizen the way that Natural Born was used in the common law. That is a FACT. It shows that the writers of the Constitution were using THE COMMON LAW, not Vattel.
Re: “but you don’t present facts and direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.”
Answer: BOTH Tucker and Rawle use the exact verbatim phrase Natural Born Citizen, and both of them use it exactly the same way as Natural Born was used in the common law:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Do you see “Natural Born Citizen” in Tucker? He says that it is made up of “those born within the state”—the place of birth, not the parents. Do you see “Natural Born Citizen” in Rawle? He says that EVERY person born in the USA is one regardless of whether the parents are citizens or aliens. And, guess what, there is NO example of the writers of the US Constitution ever using either Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to the citizenship of the parents, only to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.
Re: “You seem to say that the Founders had FULL exposure to the “popular” Vattel definition which requires parents (plural).”
Answer: NO, I said that SOME of them had read the book. But I also said that they also read other books and did not accept everything that he suggested (such as a state religion). And I also said that they read either the original French or the translation that used the word “indigenes”—which some of them, but not likely all, might have translated as Natural Born Citizen. But IF they did, all that they would have thought was “it’s VATTEL’s definition of NBC—not the one that comes from the common law—so why should I use it?—but IF I do use it, then for sure I’d tell people that I used it”—and they didn’t tell anyone that they used Vattel.
Re: “You suggest that considering or writing any basic law would have been moot as the immutable practice was to transpose English common law without modification or amendment every time a new hamlet was erected.”
Answer: No I said that the use of concepts from the common law was, duh, common (like Habeas Corpus and ex post facto), and that if they had used a new definition of a common law term, a meaning that came from a SWISS philosopher (and in Switzerland they use jus sanguinus and not the jus soli that the British and Americans were familiar with) and did not use the common law, which was, duh, common—then they would have told us that they did, and they didn’t tell us.
You have your version and Chitty has his. We seem to be at an impasse. You say “native” Chitty says “natural born citizen.” Chitty is published to this day. You are not.
The”Bible” has to do with accurate translation. The Bible came from exponentially more sources and there is infinitely less confusion and disagreement about the words used and ideas presented therein.
You seem to say that the Founders had FULL exposure to the “popular” Vattel definition which requires parents (plural). Then you say, during their educational and formative years, the Founders had no translation of Vattel. You appear to contradict yourself. Did they or didn’t they read the translated version of Vattel? Did they READ Vattel’s requirement for parents (plural) or not? If they read “parents,” then “parents” (plural) was in their minds. If it was in their minds, they could have used Vattel’s definition without telling their friends, acquaintances or colleagues. They might, even, have not told you. I would have been very surprised at the time that the Founders would not have had some new, groundbreaking ideas. I would have been very surprised, at the time, that they would not have had some surprises.
You suggest that considering or writing any basic law would have been moot as the immutable practice was to transpose English common law without modification or amendment every time a new hamlet was erected. The Founders, according to you, had no work to do other than the task of transference. These weren’t thinkers, they were bearers, beasts of burden. Through familiarity with Vattel, the Founders may very well have meant that a “natural born citizen,” from that point forward, would have been defined as having parents (plural) as citizens, which would have been consistent with people who were setting the foundations of an entirely new form of government, with great expectations, and attempting to insure against any negative influences from foreign allegiances (precluded somewhat by requiring two parents as citizens), using the newest ideas in contrast to those that were 300 years old.
You present friendships and acquaintances but you don’t present facts and direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.” It does not exist in English common law or Blackstone’s writings. You may have an argument with Chitty and I don’t want to come between you two parties. I can read that use of the phrase is assigned to Vattel and the Founders. That is all. Please present what you can prove related to the ver batim use of the phrase “natural born citizen.”
If you can’t do that, you don’t appear to have standing.
P.S. Did you say I was not a liar or not a lawyer? I’m not sure how to take that, exactly.
Re: “Many sources show Vattel as the first use of this particular phrase. ”
Since Vattel wrote in FRENCH, and the phrase was not translated into English until ten years after the Constitution, he could not have been the one who used it first.
Apparently, the first use of the term was in the letter from John Jay to George Washington, in which he recommended that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen. And, wait for it, John Jay was AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW.
Re: “Where in history do we find the ver batim phrase, “natural born citizen?” ”
Answer, once again, in John Jay’s letter.
Re: “Until we find an irrefutable source of the phrase, the best evidence is Vattel’s use (translated). ”
Answer: Would you like to buy a bridge? I have a bridge to sell you, a pretty one. If you buy the myth that a translation after the Constitution was the source of a term in the Constitution, you’ll buy anything.
The fact that a translator ten years after the Constitution was written used the same three words as used in the Constitution is what is known as A COINCIDENCE. The term does not come from Vattel. The writers of the Constitution took the common law term Natural Born and added Citizen, and if they had used Vattel, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—and they didn’t.
The evidence of their friends Tucker and Rawle was that they used the term Natural Born exactly the same way as it was used in the common law. And there are NO examples of the members of the Constitutional Convention ever using the terms Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to PARENTS, only as in the common law, to the place of birth.
Re Bible. What does that have to do with Natural Born Citizen status? It certainly DOES NOT SHOW that the writers of the Constitution used Vattel. The later translations of Vattel’s “indigenes” as “Natural Born Citize” might or might not be accurate, but the fact that translations AFTER the Constitution affected the Constitution is loony. The only way that Vattel could be the source of the term would be for the members of the Constitutional Convention to have translated “indigenes” themselves, and translated it as “Natural Born Citizen”—and then used it. But it is hardly likely that they would have done that WITHOUT TELLING US THAT THEY DID, and they didn’t.
I appreciate your ability to digress and obfuscate but it would be more productive to remain on topic which is the phrase “natural born citizen.” Can you refer a use of this very phrase by Blackstone or any other source? I would be very interested in knowing the reason that phrase, in particular, was used in the Constitution.
The Founders did not copy, ver batim, English common law or any other source. Many sources show Vattel as the first use of this particular phrase. You don’t agree with that. All of your speculation and conjecture do not provide facts. The friends the Founders had and their deliberations, while interesting to readers, are NOT material or relevant to the final phrase the Founders actually used – no one knows precisely and exactly what decisions ultimately occurred in the minds of the Founders who penned the phrase “natural born citizens.” For all we know, the participants could have simply acquiesced out of exhaustion.
Please address the phrase “natural born citizen,” not any other words, combinations or forms. It appears Blackstone did not use the phrase, ver batim, nor did English common law. The Founders used the phrase “natural born citizen” which ONLY directly connects with Chitty’s, et. al., translation of Vattel.
Where in history do we find the ver batim phrase, “natural born citizen?” Until we find an irrefutable source of the phrase, the best evidence is Vattel’s use (translated).
It continues to be a source of wonderment how the words of the Bible have been generally accepted considering that fact that translating the various languages and meanings therein must have been exponentially more difficult than the work of one man, Vattel. It is interesting that on this political website there are vicious attacks on the translators but very little, in fact much agreement, when it comes to the, presumably, more important and impactful Bible.
Re: “Thank you. Why did Chitty translate “natives” to “natural born citizen?””
Answer: Publishers publish bad translations all the time.
But, say that there is a remote possibility that Chitty (whose first edition was in 1834) got the translation vaguely right. Well, even if he did, that DOES NOT MEAN that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel.
If they had used Vattel, they would have said so—and they didn’t. And the Federalist Papers did not mention Vattel at all, while it mentioned the common law about twenty times and always with praise. For them to have used Vattel, they would have had to have translated the French word “indigenes” as “Natural Born Citizen”—and then used that translation, without saying that they had made the translation or that they had used Vattel—-that is not very likely, is it. The common law was, duh, far more common.
So, regardless of what Vattel may have thought, there is NO evidence that the writers of the Constitution relied on him They certainly did not rely on his advice that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or make them leave the country. So, what makes you think that they adopted his two-citizen-parent idea?
Thank you. Why did Chitty translate “natives” to “natural born citizen?” Why and how was Chitty allowd to continue to publish anything; why was his license not revoked? This makes absolutely no sense. A publisher is allowed to arbitrarily change the meaning of a text by changing its translation.
One of you is wrong. You or Chitty. Which is it? Why was Chitty published?
Why haven’t you corrected Wikipedia for one? If I recall correctly, Wiki quoted Chitty.
Oh, by the way, I see that I quoted Tucker twice above, and failed to quote Rawle, who was a friend of both George Washington and Ben Franklin. Here he is:
“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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)