Ah, an imaginative enough variation on the tired arguments of the past four years to deserve some response, particularly for a FR subscriber who has has hung around for ten years. Using Thomas Aquinas is a first. It would inspire the curious to read Aquinas, except that we have lots of examples of people who are not natural born citizens right here. Slaves, born in the US, were finally made citizens, and not natural born citizens, by the 14th Amendment, a naturalization law. Natural citizens and naturalized citizens are different, as explained by John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment.
Rubio’s status depends upon Cuba's law. If Cuba mirrors British common law, which addresses ‘subjects’, implying allegiance to some authority, then Marco may be a natural born subject of Cuba, as Barack was naturally born a subject of the British Commonwealth.
"Two hundred and twenty years of legal precedent must be set aside because some FRENCH guy referred to “naturels...”"
Some “FRENCH” guy, was actually a “SWISS” guy. Vattel wrote in the diplomatic language of The Continent, French, thoroughly understood by former Envoy to France, John Jay, by John Marshall, and by George Washington. Since Jay used the term “natural born citizen”, and was later a Chief Justice when Washington ruled on a congressional effort to extend natural born citizenship to foreign born children of US Citizens in the Nationality Act of 1790, repealed in 1795, and signed by Washington, you are presuming that Washington and Jay didn't understand the meaning they put into the Constitution. Marshall was Chief Justice when the last mention of natural born citizenship was expunged from the Congressional Record, forever, suggesting that those language deficient men who framed and founded our nation didn't understand the term they put in the Constitution. Such nonsense, but we've seen lots of it here. Of course, the end justifies the means.
Your comments warranted a reply because yours is the rationale being offered by the two latest judges to deny challenges to Obama’s right to be on state ballots. These judges cite Wong Kim Ark, the case which made the son of Chinese nationals, born in San Francisco, a citizen. It didn't make him a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited Minor v. Happersett is precedent for the definition of who were natural born citizens. The Wong Kim decision is based upon the 14th Amendment, which never mentions natural born citizens, and whose author explicitly specified “... of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” Thus the child of Muslim Brotherhood parents, in the US to prosecute the war on our nation, or force everyone to become Muslim, born in their hideout in Arizona, raised a jihadist, is eligible to become president? Our framers faced a similar threat from the children of royalists. For judges to misrepresent our framers may be treason (the only word defined in the Constitution), because it is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Quite to the contrary, Spaulding. The 14th Amendment was consistent with the first 10 in that it asserted a natural right, according to natural law, where the human law had failed to recognize it.
YOu actually nailed it with the distinction between naturalized citizens and natural-born citizen. A naturalized citizen is one who was not natural-born a citizen. Conversely, unless someone is natural-born, they must be naturalized. Find me any reference to the naturalization of emancipated slaves.
>>Since Jay used the term “natural born citizen”, and was later a Chief Justice when Washington ruled on a congressional effort to extend natural born citizenship to foreign born children of US Citizens in the Nationality Act of 1790, repealed in 1795, and signed by Washington, you are presuming that Washington and Jay didn’t understand the meaning they put into the Constitution. <<
That’s just it, though. Vattel didn’t use the term “natural born” at all. He used the term, “naturel” which is best translated, “indigenous.”
>> Some “FRENCH” guy, was actually a “SWISS” guy. Vattel wrote in the diplomatic language of The Continent, French,...<<
Emmerich de Vattel was describing the Roman law (which has nothing to do with “Roman” Catholicism) of a foreign state, not the Common law of America or Britain, or any of Britain’s subjects. And he wrote in French, meaning people have been butchering his translation, by translating, “naturel” as “natural-born,” not “indigenous.”* He wrote in French because partly because it was his native tongue.
(*The French would adopted “les indigens” when referring to the population native to the lands they colonized, but this still held a connotation of being ruled by an empire, and is better translated, “native.”)