[El Gato]

Adams read Vattel, but was in Europe when the Constitution was written. The founders also read Blackstone who took a different view of what a "natural born citizen" was.

Blackstone wrote of Natural Born Subjects, not citizens, and wrote a lot about them, not just the raw definition. The whole notion, according to Blackstone, comes from the fealty owed to the feudal Lord.

No thanks.

[rxsid]

"The whole notion, according to Blackstone, comes from the fealty owed to the feudal Lord. No thanks. "

No kidding! And, clearly, the founders thought enough the same to go so far as to wage war against those "ideals".

[unspun]

Blackstone wrote of Natural Born Subjects, not citizens, and wrote a lot about them, not just the raw definition. The whole notion, according to Blackstone, comes from the fealty owed to the feudal Lord. No thanks.

Exactly. Blackstone was a reporter of British law (and at times British specifics involving international and natural law). Vattel, however, was a reporter specifically of international (and thus, natural) law.

[x]

Blackstone wrote of Natural Born Subjects, not citizens, and wrote a lot about them, not just the raw definition. The whole notion, according to Blackstone, comes from the fealty owed to the feudal Lord.

Historically, that is where sovereignty came from. Maybe that's not the right basis to start from philosophically, but are Vattel's conclusions really closer to our own tradition of freedom than Blackstone's?

I don't know, I'm asking. But given all the respect the founders and their contemporaries had for Blackstone, can we just dismiss his views now?