Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
Yes, yes, you’ve said many times that Vattel gave a definition of “natural born citizen”. You still haven’t shown any information which suggests that the Founders preferred that definition over the common law definition, which was at least as well known to them.
Are you going to tell us that it meant that only children of citizens born beyond the sea were to be considered natural born citizens???
It doesn't say "that are". It says "that may" which widens their definition from what it was to something more involving possibility, or chance. So then what was it before they added "that may ..."???
<>You still haven’t shown any information which suggests that the Founders preferred that definition over the common law definition, which was at least as well known to them.<>
Yes he has — many times. Try Founder and historian David Ramsay for one:
"The Faculty as now constituted was remarkably able. There was first the President James Madison, who had charge of the department of Natural and Moral Philosophy, International Law and Political Economy. He was a graduate of William and Mary, and afterwards studied in England where he attended the lectures of the celebrated Cavallo on Natural Science. Though subsequently Bishop of the Episcopal church, his proper place was in the class room, where he spent as much as four to six hours a day. Under his tutelage Adam Smith's great work Inquiry into the Nature and Sources of the Wealth of Nations and Vattel's Law of Nations were taught at William and Mary earlier than at any other College in the United States." [Sometime around 1779]
Pg. 6.
My 1928 edition bouvier’s law dictionary:
native, native citizen: A natural-born subject. 91 Bla. Com. 366)
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. (Morse Citizenship 12)
There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act
page 833
change 9 to (
The author's brief history of this amazing college is a capsule of how our framers were shaped and thus shaped the republic. Look who was involved in informing the thinking of our framers, and how many of them came from William and Mary - Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, James Munroe, St. George Tucker, George Wythe.
I recall early in 2009 when The Regime's cadre was challenging worried bloggers with the claim that hardly anyone paid attention to the second-rate Swiss philosopher during the framing. Did Larry Tribe, for whom Obama was a research assistant at Harvard, create the diversions? He certainly knows much of this history, but must be presumed to have decided that a monarchy in the mode of Stalin, Castro, Chavez, is preferable to the wisdom of the framers and their enlightenment sources.
Jack Cashill pointed out in American Thinker that Elene Kagen covered for Tribe when he was caught having plagiarized significant passages in a book he had written, which is probably why he was not on Obama’s short list for the court - but Kagen is!
As an aside, since no one is judging my coherence, a very well known mathematician, Harvard graduate, once surprised me with a historical insight. Asking how he happened to know he said "I wanted to be a historian while at Harvard but learned that I wasn't smart enough." He went on to get his PhD in mathematics at Berkeley. Larry Tribe did do undergraduate work in mathematics, and may have laid the path to allow a talented non-natural born citizen to lead us to the far left. He may be advising the White House's paid disinformation cadre. Larry has spent over fifty years in ivory towers since his high school years with the proletariat in a public school in San Francisco.
Between you and Bushpilot1 there are the makings of a documented history of our framer's thinking. William and Mary was creating our leaders from 1693. The reference to the paper by Michael Ramsey provided by BushPilot1 is a cogent description of how Law of Nations was integrated de facto into our formal legal framework. It is very dense, but shows that the framers didn't accept the entire body as our common law, but overlaid the law of nations onto the existing English common law.
Where exactly do those quotes from Ramsay’s “1789 Article” come from? They don’t come from “History of the American Revolution”.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly did not address the citizenship of those born in the United States. That was determined by common law. It only extended natural born citizenship to those born outside of the United States to citizen parents.
I don’t see how you can honestly read it any other way.
Never mind, I found the article. I strongly question Apuzzo’s claim that “We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a ‘natural born Citizen’ the same way that Ramsay did.”
Ramsay’s definition does not seem consistent with what Madison said before the House of Representatives in 1789: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
I don’t see how Ramsay’s and Madison’s views can be reconciled. If they can’t be, then there was disagreement among the Founders as to what a “natural born citizen” was. If so, then the issue of whether “natural born citizen” derives its Constitutional definition from English law or French law cannot be resolved by an article by Ramsay.
Check out post #37 and the link there. Madison's quote was regarding citizenship during the time of the Declaration of Independence.
Madison’s quote was regarding the birthright citizenship of William Loughton Smith, whose eligibility for the House of Representatives was disputed by his opponent in his election to the First Congress. Madison clearly states that Smith’s citizenship derives from birthright due to the place of his birth, and that because of that no other source need be consulted. That is quite inconsistent with the article David Ramsay authored.
Furthermore, the major objection Mr. Smith’s opponent made to his citizenship was the fact that Smith was absent from the United State from 1770 to 1783. That, of course, would mean Smith was not a citizen under the criteria put forth in David Ramsay’s article. The fact that Madison so emphatically asserted Smith’s citizenship shows that Madison disagreed with Ramsay’s views on citizenship.
And just who was Mr. Smith’s opponent? I was interested to learn that it was none other than David Ramsay! Ramsay wrote that article in support of his own argument that he should be seated in the First Congress because Smith was not a citizen. The First Congress disagreed with Ramsay.
David Ramsay’s views on citizenship were self-serving and were rejected by the members of the First Congress - and by none more emphatically than Madison, the primary draftsman of the Constitution. Ramsay’s views of citizenship were clearly not shared by his contemporaries, and thus his writings are no real evidence of the general understanding of the natural born citizen clause.
Any other evidence you’d care to put forth?
<>Madison’s quote was regarding the birthright citizenship of William Loughton Smith, whose eligibility for the House of Representatives was disputed by his opponent in his election to the First Congress. Madison clearly states that Smith’s citizenship derives from birthright due to the place of his birth, and that because of that no other source need be consulted.<>
Read Madison’s response carefully. He says that Smith’s
“ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony [South Carolina]”. That’s Vattel’s and Ramsay’s definition of natural born citizen right there in front of you — birth in a colony of which one’s ancestors were among the first setlers of that colony. And that his allegiance was first and foremost to that colony in which he was born from descendants of the first settlers.
The question was whether this was allegiance to Britain or whether allegiance to the United States, affirmed or denied by activities during the years of his absence during the Revolution.
Madison’s argument was that Smith was an indisputable citizen of South Carolina, born where his “ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony”, and his loyalties followed that colony wherever it went, and he had committed no overt act during the years of his absence to alter that fact.
<> Ramsay’s views of citizenship were clearly not shared by his contemporaries, and thus his writings are no real evidence of the general understanding of the natural born citizen clause.<>
Madison disagrees with you, saying:
“It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles...”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
You need to read carefully and objectively despite what you might be paid to do.
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
In general place is the most certain criterion especially when that place is South Carolina where one's ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
No wonder Madison was so certain of his allegiance -- Smith was a natural born citizen of that colony.
I like your June thru Sept.timeline of dates of the NBC issue as it plays out in the drafting of the US-CONST.
A FReeper with graphics skills could make a nice little graph of such.
"Influence of President Dew
One of the most influential professors at the College of William and Mary during the present century was Thomas Roderick Dew (1802 - 1846). He was a graduate of the institution and, in 1827, at the age of twenty-three, became professor of political economy, history, and metaphysics. A copy of the laws and regulations of the College of William and Mary, passed and published in 1830, shows that Professor Dew then held the "professorship of political law," with a salary of $1,000. His duties were defined as follows: he was to deliver lectures on natural AND national law, political economy, metaphysics, government, and history. The textbook on natural AND national law was to be Vattel, with reference to Rutherforth's Institutes; in political economy, Smith's Wealth of Nations; in metaphysics, Browne abridged; Locke on Government, and Rousseau's Social Contract. Lectures were required at least three times a week upon each subject." Pg. 54.
The College of William And Mary: A Contribution to the History of Higher Education
by Herbert B. Adams, Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
"The College of William and Mary: a contribution to the history of higher education, with suggestions for its national promotion
Issue 1 of Circular of information
Volume 1 of Contributions to American educational history U.S. Bureau of education. Circulars of information."
Author Herbert Baxter Adams
Publisher: G.P.O., 1887
On the text selection of President Madison (the "Father" of the Constitution), and the two professors of law, Wythe and Tucker at William and Mary:
Before 1790, the college leaders shared the nationalist outlook of their colleagues elsewhere. In his courses on natural law and politics Madison used Vattel, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. The first two were standard fare" Pg. 170
Table 3-2:*
Curricular Offerings by Author at Pre-Revolutionary Colleges
---------------------------------------------------------
Pufendorf is listed under the College of N.J. and King's College
Grotius is listed under the College of N.J., Kings and the College of Philadelphia
Locke's Essay is listed under Harvard, Yale and College of N.J.
Locke's Two Treatises is listed under the College of Philadelphia
Montesquieu is listed under the College of N.J.
(& others) Pg. 81-82.
* Vattel was taught at Kings College (now Columbia) in 1773! (hat tip to bushpilot1)
Table 5-1:
Curricular Offerings by Author at Original Colleges Post-1783
---------------------------------------------------------
Pufendorf same colleges as before
Grotius same as before
Locke's Essay same as before, with addition to William and Mary
Locke's Two Treatises same as before
Montesquieu same as before, with addition to Yale and William & Mary
Vattel is added to Yale and William and Mary.
(& others) Pg. 167-168.
William and Mary home of America's first school of law.
Yale was the largest university (by numbers) in 1783. (Pg. 125)
Pufendorf's work, were commentaries and revisions of the natural law theories of Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius. "On The Duty of Man and Citizen According to the Natural Law (1673)"
Grotius laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law. "The Law of War and Peace (1625)"
Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy. "Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690)" and his Essay "Concerning Human Understanding (1690)"
Montesquieu relied upon the natural law as a standard. Despite the alleged relativism of his thought, he often condemned laws, practices, and institutions as violations of human nature and the natural law. He was also one who articulated the theory of separation of powers. "The Spirit of Laws (1751)"
Vattel. "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)"
What we see here is that in the college's curricula of the Pre-Revolutionary era, jurists and philosophers of natural law who's work primarily appears in the 1600's are taught.
Then, in the Post-1783 era, Vattel's work from 1758 is added to William and Mary (influential college of Madison, father of the Constitution, Jefferson and Marshall - who would later quote Vattel's NBC definition (born in country to citizen parentS) in the SCOTUS case: THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) ) and Yale (the largest by student population).
Vattel become increasingly more popular in the American colonies after 1775, when Dumas sent (English language) copies of Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin who stated "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations."
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.