Given the significant reliance of the Founding Fathers on Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations for understanding and defining various legal and constitutional principles, it is reasonable to assert that Vattel’s definition of "natural born citizen" was the Founders' definition of the term.
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
Based on this strict originalist interpretation, Kamala Harris, born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, would not qualify as a "natural born citizen" according to the definition understood by the Founding Fathers and Vattel’s work.
If all, or a good many Red states would refuse to allow Kamala to appear on ballot because she's is not a Natural Born Citizen, we could force SCOTUS to decide hopefully.
There are some who like to claim that Trumps mother was not a citizen at time of his birth. I think she was a naturalized citizen though. However:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning.
Let's look directly at Emmerich de Vattel's text from "The Law of Nations" to clarify this:
In Book 1, Chapter 19, § 212, Vattel writes:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights."
While this passage does emphasize the father's role, it mentions "parents" in the plural when defining natural-born citizens. This can be interpreted as requiring both parents to be citizens, but it also places particular importance on the father in terms of the child's legal status.
The focus on the father is typical of the time when Vattel wrote, reflecting societal norms where paternal lineage was often the primary determinant of citizenship and legal rights.
So, while Vattel's text does indeed highlight the father's condition, the broader context includes both parents as citizens when defining natural-born citizenship.
This is my understanding. I could be wrong, or the source from which I derived this understanding might have been wrong.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning (sic).
That the founders who wrote the amendments relied on Vattel's text is implied, but not documented anywhere explicitly. Implied because they all were known to have a copy, and I think I read somewhere that there is written evidence that they made reference to his writings, although not explicit his writings on the issue of Natural Born.
Benjamin Franklin: He corresponded with Vattel and praised his work. In a letter dated December 9, 1775, Franklin wrote to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, mentioning that he had received three copies of Vattel’s "The Law of Nations" and that the book was continuously in demand by members of Congress.
Citations by the Founders: Several Founding Fathers were influenced by Vattel’s ideas. For example, John Jay, in a letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787, suggested that the Constitution should require the president to be a "natural born citizen" to ensure allegiance to the country, reflecting an understanding influenced by Vattel.
Early Legal References: Early American legal scholars and judges referenced Vattel's work when interpreting constitutional provisions. Vattel’s definition of natural-born citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents was cited in early American legal texts and decisions, indicating its influence on American legal thought.
You are 100 percent correct.
The True Definition
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
If all, or a good many Red states would refuse to allow Kamala to appear on ballot because she's is not a Natural Born Citizen, we could force SCOTUS to decide hopefully.
There are some who like to claim that Trumps mother was not a citizen at time of his birth. I think she was a naturalized citizen though. However:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning.
Let's look directly at Emmerich de Vattel's text from "The Law of Nations" to clarify this:
In Book 1, Chapter 19, § 212, Vattel writes:
While this passage does emphasize the father's role, it mentions "parents" in the plural when defining natural-born citizens. This can be interpreted as requiring both parents to be citizens, but it also places particular importance on the father in terms of the child's legal status.
The focus on the father is typical of the time when Vattel wrote, reflecting societal norms where paternal lineage was often the primary determinant of citizenship and legal rights.
So, while Vattel's text does indeed highlight the father's condition, the broader context includes both parents as citizens when defining natural-born citizenship.
This is my understanding. I could be wrong, or the source from which I derived this understanding might have been wrong.
The founders relied on Emmerich de Vattel's text for the mesning (sic).
That the founders who wrote the amendments relied on Vattel's text is implied, but not documented anywhere explicitly. Implied because they all were known to have a copy, and I think I read somewhere that there is written evidence that they made reference to his writings, although not explicit his writings on the issue of Natural Born.