Not true. The natural law philosophy (the one under which our country was founded) encompasses this circumstance.
From Emmerich Vattel's principles of natural law:
Posted on 01/09/2016 10:58:04 AM PST by sunrise_sunset
Well said.
But the 1795 Act was repealed.
Yes it is. And like a liberal does when you've refuted their incorrect points, they go off in a huff. :)
Not true. The natural law philosophy (the one under which our country was founded) encompasses this circumstance.
From Emmerich Vattel's principles of natural law:
“Natural Law” does not bestow citizenship on anyone. Natural law existed waaaaaaay before the United States was ever thought about.
The planets orbiting the sun is an example of Natural Law. The rising of the tides is an example of Natural Law. Natural law has nothing to do with the establishment of economic systems or geopolitical boundaries or the price of tea in China, as all of those are man-made and temporal and fickle, and can change on a whim. Natural Law is not so flexible.
The vast bulk of the world follows Jus Sanguinus. Except for England after 1608, Europe mostly followed Roman law, which followed Greek law.
That is why I like message boards. Message boards allow everybody to effectively talk at the same time. =^)
The planets orbiting the sun is an example of Natural Law. The rising of the tides is an example of Natural Law. Natural law has nothing to do with the establishment of economic systems or geopolitical boundaries or the price of tea in China, as all of those are man-made and temporal and fickle, and can change on a whim. Natural Law is not so flexible.
"Natural Law" is the legal term used by the founders to describe principles of government which follow from "nature." Their arguments are to the extent that just as planets go circling round the sun is part of nature, so too is the proper relationship between man and government.
The Philosopher John Locke is one of the pioneers of this area of thought, and the founders looked to him and other philosophers of natural law when they pieced together the ideas that became this country.
Primary among these philosophers was Emmerich Vattel, who probably more than any other, influenced the people of the British Colonies to break away and become a Republic of States.
He said so. It is his ideas which we implemented. He wrote this in 1758.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Given that James Otis was the man who started the American Revolution, and given that Vattel's principles of natural law is what inspired him, It is a fair bet that our revolution came right out of the pages of Vattel's book.
Jefferson relied heavily on Vattel when writing the Declaration of Independence. His Declaration notes are all over it.
Who knows, since there is no recorded legislatve history to that effect. All I know is that since the adoption of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment in 1868 whoever qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth under the 14th Amendment also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen under Article II. Those two concepts have merged into one. Whether that was the Founder’s intent or not remains a mystery.
It is good to remember though that the vast majority of the Constitution in its original form was decided on by majority vote and there was very little that was voted up or down unanimously. History records no vote ever taken on who should be considered a natural born citizen. The term goes undefined. Again I point out that the courts rule on who qualifies as a natural born citizen on a case by case basis.
Americans don’t depend on Swiss professors for our law.
Man is dependent on natural law, but natural law is independent of anything man does, and exists whether man is around or not.
No, we depend on God. Sometimes he sends Swiss professors at the right time.
For those of you who are not aware, Switzerland was the only REPUBLIC in the world in 1776. The Swiss revolution happened in 1307. They lived nearly 500 years without a king, and that is why a Swiss professor could write a book urging States to Unite in the overthrow of a King. It could have been written no where else in the world.
Are you suggesting that it is a mystery whether the founders intended "natural born citizen" to be defined by a law written 81 years in the future? I'm kinda thinking they didn't see that coming.
Exactly. And that's why it is not subject to change by men making up new laws. It's like trying to define "Pi" by statute.
Blackstone agrees, but the part of natural law that operates in the jungle, among animals, birds, and insects, has no application in deciding issues that arise among people and groups of people.
Blackstone says there is a body of natural law that applies to human interaction. Unfortunately, it is up to humans to discover this law. He cites three principles, live honestly, hurt nobody, render to every one it's due.
The Founding Fathers were prescient enough to know that future generations would alter their thinking on many subjects. That’s why they punted on abolishing slavery in 1788.
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.