But it has always been my argument that the Delegates and the Legislators who wrote and ratified Article II, followed the Vattel meaning, and that only those people who were much subsequent and out of the constitutional loop who claim the British Law standard.
I have found precious little support for the British Law interpretation among actual Delegates. Al the advocates of that theory seem to have come from much later.
St George Tucker versus Oliver Ellsworth (who was at the Constitutional Convention)
St George Tucker has been interpreted by some as following British Common law, but his commentary on Blackstone does not support this argument.
To the best of my knowledge, Oliver Ellsworth said the English Common law continued in the US as it was before, but beyond that, I am aware of no specific commentary of his regarding the Natural Born Citizen issue.
In General, It is correct that English Common law continued in the United States, but it is obvious that specific components of it did not. (Primogeniture, Corruption of Blood, Debtor's Prison, etc. )
Pennsylvania, as you know, ordered it's Supreme Court to come up with a list of which English Laws were still in effect, and which were not. (Which they did.)
James Madison (who was at the Constitutional Convention) versus James Jackson
Madison can be argued to be on both sides of the issue, given his activities (or lack thereof) regarding William Smith. As Madison was acting in a specific authoritative capacity in regards to William Smith, I would say his position on that issue was the more authoritative.
William Rawle versus Judge Roberts
William Rawle wasn't present at the Convention, and neither was Judge Roberts, but the guy who TRAINED Judge Roberts (William Lewis) was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature that ratified the Constitution. He also Preceded William Rawle as US Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania.
In a lot of ways, the debate over citizenship parallels the debate over expatriation.
Yes it does. The early opinion on expatriation was divided with some arguing that an individual cannot expatriate themselves, while others argued that they not only could, but it was a fundamental right to do so.
I have long made the point that there might not have been agreement as to the actual meaning of "natural born citizen" when they wrote it into article II, with everyone thinking that everyone else was of the same opinion as themselves.
This is one of my alternative theories, but not my primary one. My primary theory is that Vattel was too widely known at this point in history for any one of the delegates to have been confused about this issue. I have further discovered that other writers mentioned in the notes of the convention, also advocate the citizenship through the father argument.
“St George Tucker has been interpreted by some as following British Common law, but his commentary on Blackstone does not support this argument.”
In fact he wrote an entire appendix about how the US didn’t adopt the Common Law.
Ellsworth said the opposite.
“it is obvious that specific components of it did not. (Primogeniture, Corruption of Blood, Debtor’s Prison, etc. )’
Yeah, including Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. And when the Founders varied from the English Law precedent they expressly said they were varying from the English Law precedent.
“Pennsylvania, as you know, ordered it’s Supreme Court to come up with a list of which English Laws were still in effect, and which were not. (Which they did.)’
And Zephaniah Swift said in 1795 children born in Connecticut of alien parents were considered natural born subjects.
“My primary theory is that Vattel was too widely known at this point in history for any one of the delegates to have been confused about this issue.”
And Blackstone was also very well known.
During the debates on the 1790 naturalization law, Congressman Jackson after quoting from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” on English naturalization laws, said, “So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
So the Founders used English Law as a guide to how aliens became citizens. It’s not that much of a stretch to say they also used it to determine how citizenship was acquired at birth.
An interesting find, “The Presbyterians Armoury”