Originally Posted by 11Series
Why are you quoting the DISSENTING opinion on the LOSING side of US v Wong Kim Ark? Do you not know that you are proving your claims wrong, because you are quoting the losing side of a case where the US Supreme Court ruled exactly opposite of what the dissenting judges said?
Or did you think we were stupid enough not to realize you left out this part of your quote:
"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.
I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case. "
You can turn to some Frenchie-Swiss frog if you want to, but it doesn't mean jack. The WINNING side of the US v. Wong Kim Ark DISAGREES with you. Now I've explained to you how SCOTUS has ruled in the United States, whether you want to understand or not. If you choose to side with French, against SCOTUS, you are completely out in left field.
Besides, the original French text that Vattel wrote in doesn't even contain the phrase "natural born citizen". That doesn't appear until the English translations created AFTER the US Constitution was penned. Vattel wrote “Les Naturels ou indegenes”. Any attempt to use Vattel as a glossary definition of a phrase he never wrote is fraudulent at best.
Vattel also didn't believe in Freedom of the Press, or Freedom of Religion, saying "all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation in her national capacity is doubtless bound to serve and honour Him." so he obviously was ignored when the constitution was written.
And even Vattel recognizes that common law of other states in the late 1700's did NOT follow his political theories he wrote in his book:
“Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
So you are even wrong on your reading of the LOSING side of the SCOTUS ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Did you think you could defraud us into believing that the dissenting opinion was the majority opinion?
Are your really saying that only the majority opinion of the Supreme Court has any value? That is an indefensible argument unless you are a "yes-man" always agreeing with the winning side in any argument. That attitude would seem to be impossible to maintain, and even if it were possible, you might as well not be able to utter a thought as your opinion is already better stated.
I have some familiarity with the case from prior research. I was aware of the ruling. Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a "natural born Citizen". And from what I know of the case, I agree with the majority opinion he is a citizen. [This leant support to the argument that by this U.S. standard, another candidate for the Presidency was not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States because he was born on foreign soil.]
Vattel is referenced many times by many people in history. Vattel's Law of Nations is a notable source. That you disagree with Vattel does not in any way diminish the weight of his words in the framing of our Constitution, and for purposes of this thread, specifically in the choice of the words "natural born Citizen" as one of three pre-requisites for the President and the Vice President.
What is your source for the opinion that Vattel was not translated into English prior to the writing of the Consititon?
Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.
What year was the Constitution penned?
If the use of translated materials were fraudulent, then much mroe than this case is in trouble. Would you support your statement that "Any attempt to use Vattel as a glossary definition of a phrase he never wrote is fraudulent at best."?
The part of the minority opinion I quoted is a good description of citizenship by jus sanguinis. I had referenced the quote because Vattel is not known well by most of us. This is one of many quotes to establish that Vattel's Law of Nations is authoritative.
It was by jus soli that Wong Kim Ark had legitimate claim. To be a natural born Citizen, which is the argument before us (not in Wong Kim Ark) is foremost that you must have jus sanguinis, but also you must have jus soli. If you are lacking in one, then a "natural born Citizen" you are not.