Had the Framers intended to require a natural-born subject as President they were well familiar with that actual term in full and would have used that term. Otherwise “citizen” joins “natural” and is rendered yet another linguistic distinction without a difference, an unusual circumstance given the renowned rigor and economy with words of the Framers.
I've provided several examples this evening of colonial common law being formed, by consent of the governed, upon laws, customary or otherwise, from the Roman Republic. The specific language employed by numerous courts pertaining to the term natural-born citizen is in many instances drawn directly from or an accurate paraphrase of Vattel, no matter how frequently or how often that source is derided.
Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England. I'd go so far as to state that the only place it exists is in the Bill Of Rights.
“Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FWIW, that was also argued, and rejected, in WKA. The legal language of the Constitution is of English common law, because the lawyers doing the writing were steeped in English common law.
If you want to pull in a definition from someplace else, you need to show THAT definition was the one the writers had in mind. And it is a pretty safe bet that the writers of the Constitution, in 1787, were NOT thinking about a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years LATER!
I know Mr. Rodgers is aware of this but it may be worth sharing it with RegulatorCountry and Tau Food in case they are not.
Between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusetts legislature passed a series of naturalization acts (prior to the Constitution and for a period after it was adopted, states continued to naturalize citizens). These Massachusetts acts all have the same basic format and language. And they all did the same thing - they naturalized foreigners as citizens of Massachusetts. What’s interesting about them is their language. They start by saying that so-and-so has taken the required oath and fullfilled the requirements and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born” - and that’s where it gets interesting because sometimes they “citizen” and sometimes they say “subject”.
Here are several examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”