Interesting but I wonder, if the Founders used Blackstone’s why they didn’t use the term “Natural Born Subject?”
Is it is because a subject owes alliegance to a person (The King/Queen)? Some European Monarchs, including British monarchs, were children of Monarchs of other nations. Conflicting loyalities seemed to be a fact of life for European Kings...
The United States has citizens who owe their alliegence to the Constitution, and the Nation. Given the Founders concern over the undivided alliegence they wanted embodied in the Office of the President, and the changeable alliegence that Blackstone’s ascribes to an alien born in country, I doubt very seriously that the Founders used Blackstone for a model when writting the Requirements for the Office of the President.
The fact that the Founders were as familiar with Vittals “Law of Nations” as they were with Blackstone’s, and they used Vittals terminology tells me that while Blackstones may have been counsulted, the Founders prefered Vittals reasoning and definitions....In essence Natural Born Citizen does not equal Natural Born Subject.
Coupled with T Jefferson teaching a course at William and Mary teaching “Law of Nation” and the USSC using either an exact or paraphrased quotation of Vittals definition of a Natural Born Citizen in their citizenship decisions, I find the probability of Blackstone’s being relevant to the term Natural Born Citizen approaching zero to the point of it’s being non existent.......
A citizen is a member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection.
Using the word citizen implies that the members of a community have rights and duties and the opportunity to participate in their governance.
The Founders wouldn't use the word "subject" to refer to their fellow citizens.
Blackstone was more widely known than Vattel in the colonies.
The Founders, who got their legal systeme from Britain through Blackstone, were more likely to follow the more open British rules of citizenship than the closed continental rule.
Coupled with T Jefferson teaching a course at William and Mary teaching “Law of Nation” and the USSC using either an exact or paraphrased quotation of Vittals definition of a Natural Born Citizen in their citizenship decisions, I find the probability of Blackstone’s being relevant to the term Natural Born Citizen approaching zero to the point of it’s being non existent
Completely agree. They only way they get Blacktone to work on this term, is to make citizens of a Republic equal to a subject of a crown. Otherwise, they can't make the definition for a NBS fit a NBC...if they are not equal.
The framers didn't need to make that impossible equation work when someone else (that they relied upon) defined the term already. Vattel. In addition to the 5 SCOTUS cases mentioned the same definition (as Vattel) in their dicta, we have founder Ramsay reaffirming the same definition as well as the framer of the 14th Amemdment John Bingham reaffirming the same definition.