Replies

I have a lot of books in my library too but that proves nothing. I tell you what I’m pretty sure the framers all had at their disposal and that was a dictionary.

From Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

native, a: 1. Produced by nature; original; born with the being; natural; not acquired; as native genius; native affections; a native talent or disposition; native cheerfulness; native simplicity.

2. Produced by nature; not factitious or artificial; as native ore; native color.

3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.

4. Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves.

5. Original; that of which any thing is made; as mans native dust.

6. Born with; congenial.

Every single definition of “native” from the authoritative dictionary of the early 1800s gives the word “native” the sense of “natural” or “original” or “born with.”

There is nothing in Webster’s 1828 dictionary to contradict that “native” carried a meaning of “natural” or “at birth.”

If there had been any real distinction between a “native-born” citizen and a “natural-born” one, surely someone would have clarified the distinction. But no. Apparently, EVERYBODY understood that (with the sole exception that children born abroad to US citizens were also “natural born”) the terms meant essentially the same thing.

Minor v. Happersett references the common law, but never mentions the Swiss philosopher Vattel, who you claim gave our Founding Fathers the concept of natural-born citizenship.

Never mind the fact that at the time the Founding Fathers established the country, there really was not and could not have been very much at all in the way of “American common law” (Apuzzo and Donofrio postulate this theory) separate from the common law of the country that all of the Colonies were a part of — England - that had been handed down for centuries.

Never mind the fact, either, that Blackstone’s treatise on English common law was the fundamental text of the law school at William & Mary — our nation’s first law school.

Never mind the fact that Blackstone was quoted by the Founding Fathers some 16 times more frequently than Vattel. Source: http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

In spite of overwhelming evidence that the Founding Fathers looked to the English common law far more often than to Vattel, and in spite of the fact that the phrase “natural born” is known to have come from the English common law, you birthers still insists that it was Vattel that the Founding Fathers looked to, and not the English common law.

That is just not logical.

IMO, it is illogical to ignore statements by members of the Convention that, as Madison stated "the Common Law of England is not the Common Law of the United States" (emphasis added). In addition, the fact that the court in Minor vs. Happersett specifically referenced common law, when defining NBC differently from the definition that you derive from Natural Born Subject in English Common Law, is a clear acknowledgement that the "common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers ... were familiar" was understood to differ from that of England. You must remember that the status of "subject," natural born or not, included a religious requirement, which would have been anathema to the Framers. Finally, under English Common Law, once a natural born subject, one was forever a subject - one's allegiance to the British Crown was permanent and could never be surrendered. Hence, the impressing of US seamen that contributed to the War of 1812.

However, this all becomes moot when one considers the forged birth certificates, the forged Selective Service registration and the use of multiple Social Security numbers (including, at present, one that fails E-Verify.)

Any one of these is a felony; not having registered with Selective Service is a bar to serving in any Federal office, including US Senator. Regardless of the status of his parents, this alone bars Mr. Obama from the Presidency.