Posted on 10/18/2009 12:42:55 PM PDT by Danae
Vattel’s book was in some areas the basis for the constitution. It isn’t the constitution nor is it the law.
You can refer to it as foundational, but you can’t say its law. It isn’t.
I forgot to mention, Born overseas disqualifies a baby from being a Natural Born citizen unless born on US Territory, like a Military Base. and that distinction is made in Law of Nations.
No, Vattel's exception is for those born of citizens serving the nation overseas, bascially diplomats and military. It never inlcuded the childen of other citizens as the 1790 Act did.
If such births are not sufficient to convey 14th Amendment citizenship, ie birth in the country and under the jurisdiction thereof, then certainly natural-born citizenship does not enter the equation.
You're back to citzenship by operation of statute. Statutory citizenship is not natural-born citizenship.
Again, look to the Insular Cases.
El Gato and I are both aware of the distinction between statute law, the Constitution, and what might or might not be considered a definitive source for original intent of the Founders.
We have been going back and forth, as to the extent to which Vattel could be considered such a definitive source. This is a discussion that has been carried on across several threads.
Sorry if that’s confusing to you.
Which one specifically? I know birth on a military base is not sufficient to confer citizenship, which is why I said that location doesn't matter. For example, someone born of a servicemember and a local, but on the base, has the same status as if born off the base, with treaty/Status of Forces exemptions of course. But someone born of tow citizens, on or off the base is a statutory citizen at the very least, under the 1795 and subsequent acts. But by the exception of both Vattel and Blackstone, the person would be a Natural Born citizen independent of the statute.
14th amendment citizenship is different than natural born citizenship, which is why Obama is not eligible, even if born in the US.
Which one specifically? I know birth on a military base is not sufficient to confer citizenship, which is why I said that location doesn't matter. For example, someone born of a servicemember and a local, but on the base, has the same status as if born off the base, with treaty/Status of Forces exemptions of course. But someone born of tow citizens, on or off the base is a statutory citizen at the very least, under the 1795 and subsequent acts. But by the exception of both Vattel and Blackstone, the person would be a Natural Born citizen independent of the statute.
14th amendment citizenship is different than natural born citizenship, which is why Obama is not eligible, even if born in the US.
That's my understanding as well.
But by the exception of both Vattel and Blackstone, the person would be a Natural Born citizen independent of the statute.
Do you have a cite of a Supreme Court decision, or even dicta from such a decision, to support this contention? What is the evidence supporting such an interpretation, other than the existence of an exception under both Vattel and Blackstone?
The problem is that Natural Born Citizenship is only a factor in eligibility for the Office of President. No such case has ever come before the Court, so they have had no cause to rule on the issue. There is dicta on the "of two citizens born in the country" part of Vattel's criteria, (cited in Wong Kim Ark, but dicta even in the original case) I know of none specifically on the "in the armies" provision of Vattel.
So, it’s back to saying that children born abroad to parents serving in the military are citizens, and that citizenship is determined via statute, going all the way back to the 1795 Act. Any form of citizenship above and beyond that, cannot be shown via any relevant decision, implied by statute or even implied by the deliberate omission of a statute, as in the instance of the 1795 Act.
Vattel and Blackstone dealt with this issue similarly, but neither appear to clearly be the definitive source for any determination of Constitutional citizenship for children born under such circumstances... which is fairly close where I was before we began this discussion.
Maybe multiple sources might have been considered for such foreign births, with little available in the way of appropriate, specific guidance or precedent, creating the need for a novel solution, “de novo” I suppose would be the appropriate term? The United States was, as I understand, regarded as being the first Constitutional Republic. Pursuing such an avenue might not clarify matters at all.
Your previous comment, about the original 1790 Act being indicative of a recognition that such foreign births were not covered under the Constitution, would seem to be something to dwell upon.
Only such as were not included in the original understanding. It says nothing about the notion that foreign birth to two US citizens, one (or both) of whom was serving the country beyond it's borders makes the children Natural born citizens.
If we are to accept Vattel's general definition, why would we not accept his specific "exemptions" from the general defintion? Certainly in the absence of some counter vailing provision or decision, I can't see why we should not do so.
But by "we", I really mean the Courts, should it ever come to them to determine.
See post 83:
Well, then, you’re back to Vattel not applying, and born overseas is not natural-born.
No, Vattel’s exception is for those born of citizens serving the nation overseas, basically diplomats and military. It never included the children of other citizens as the 1790 Act did.
No problem. I am sure you guys know of Blackstone as well.
I won’t bring it up.
When push comes to shove think of this. Obama could instruct his “own” Dept of Justice to bring Quo Warrento and settle the matter himself. If he is legit, he could do that and blamo, controversy over. Anyone want to bet he’s going to give those instructions? Uh.. no, he doesn’t dare because he is just as sure as I am that he would be declared ineligible.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.