Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: faucetman

“It WAS available during the 1787 convention. In French and English. “

No. The 1797 translation was NOT available in 1787.

And in the French, Vattel NEVER used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ - it being, after all, a phrase that didn’t exist when Vattel was writing in the 1750s. The closest equivalent would have been ‘natural born subject’ - and the French for that is & was “sujets naturel”.


34 posted on 02/29/2012 10:10:55 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

Rogers, you’re being pathetic again. It’s already been shown that the founders translated the French word “naturel” as “natural-born” as early as 1781. Why do you think that 1797 translation was changed?? It reflected the common interpretation PRIOR to 1797.


37 posted on 02/29/2012 10:19:56 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
And in the French, Vattel NEVER used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ - it being, after all, a phrase that didn’t exist when Vattel was writing in the 1750s. The closest equivalent would have been ‘natural born subject’ - and the French for that is & was “sujets naturel”.

Your point is irrelevant. You might as well say that the "Le Car", translates to "the car" not "the automobile." The choice of which word to use in translation is entirely up to the translator.

The word "naturel" translates to native, which as Justice Waite points out, is the same thing as Natural born citizen, which he defines as having two citizen parents. They are synonyms.

59 posted on 02/29/2012 2:44:24 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson