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

To: DiogenesLamp

English common law did NOT use Vattel’s definition of citizenship. Nor did Vattel write about “natural born subjects”. He didn’t ever use the phrase. Birthers quote him because of a bad translation made 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was written. Vattel used the terms “natives” and “indigenes”, not NBS or NBC.


660 posted on 03/09/2013 6:57:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

Well, contrary to what other “experts” on the internet might tell you, Vattel DID use the term “Natural Subjects.”

I found it years ago in a 1770ish French copy.

It’s in section XVII, and NOT the Natives and Indigenes section that everyone seems to promulgate and dissect, ad nauseam.

Here’s what I found in the original:

[...] Les fujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]

Now, let me bring that up-to-date for you by getting rid of Ye Olde style of spelling:

[...] Les sujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]

Now, let me translate it for you:

[...] The natural subjects of the Prince are attached to him [...]

Pretty cut and dry.

So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?

Just my two cents.

That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.

I see nothing that Cruz has done which goes against that litmus test. Ergo, even though I have doubts as to if Cruz actually dotted all the “i’s” in his Natural Born-ness paperwork, his loyalty to America does indeed seem to pass the Original Intent of the Natural Born requirements for a President. And, barring any unforeseen trips to Canada wherein he stumps for Canadian politicians, I’ve got no problem voting for him if he wins the primaries.

On the other hand, Obama... Well, let’s just say that Obama is the very One Our Founding Fathers warned us about and is why they felt so motivated to insert that Natural Born Clause!

Cheers!


671 posted on 03/09/2013 9:50:02 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

I will generally not respond to you. You have personal reasons for wanting the term to mean what you believe, and there is no point in arguing with you about it. You allow emotion to color your reason.


1,053 posted on 03/11/2013 9:02:48 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | 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