Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800's
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/natural-born-citizen-discussions-in-th e-late-1800s/#more-4992 ^ | October 12, 2010 | Bridgette

Posted on 10/12/2010 10:42:48 AM PDT by Bridgetteb

“Looking Back at History” Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800′s

The definition of Natural Born Citizen and the presidential eligibility issue were researched in the late 1800's. Multiple newspaper articles are presented to show how constitutionalists and scholars in the 19th century addressed the issues by responding to citizen's questions. Copies of articles are shown.

The first article below asks: If a person with American parents is born in a foreign country would he be eligible to the presidency? Note the answer states “parents” not the singular word “parent.”

May 27, 1888 Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to Be President?

continued ...

(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: History; Politics
KEYWORDS: aliens; articleii; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizen; eligibility; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 10/12/2010 10:42:56 AM PDT by Bridgetteb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Linky no worky


2 posted on 10/12/2010 10:48:46 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
New Link
3 posted on 10/12/2010 11:02:47 AM PDT by pennyfarmer (Even a RINO will chew its foot off when caught in a trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

I was born in Germany on a USAF base of US parents. I believe I am eligible. More so than Obama.


4 posted on 10/12/2010 11:20:20 AM PDT by rfreedom4u ("A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

The mothers of the President and First Lady in the new NBC show, “The Event”, are Cuban immigrants. ;0)


5 posted on 10/12/2010 11:41:55 AM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR

If the fictitious Cuban exile mother was naturalized at the time of the fictitious President’s birth, there is no problem. If she wasn’t, then there is.


6 posted on 10/12/2010 11:56:20 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u; Bridgette

Does this mean that those born in the US by C-section are not eligible?


7 posted on 10/12/2010 11:56:46 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

Children of citizens ,be they born overseas( including )SHALL BE considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. Yes technically you are a Natural born citizen and can be President . obama was not born to American parents( both ) therefore he is not eligible to be President.


8 posted on 10/12/2010 12:32:49 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

as long as their name is not MacBeth...


9 posted on 10/12/2010 12:37:28 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer

Penny, Thanks for adding a correct link!

I don’t know why those two links don’t work. They do get to the blog, and if one clicks on home, the article will be there.


10 posted on 10/12/2010 12:38:25 PM PDT by Bridgetteb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...

Ping!


11 posted on 10/12/2010 12:40:11 PM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...

Ping.................

Could be interesting to compare nowadays.


12 posted on 10/12/2010 12:56:53 PM PDT by melancholy (It ain't Camelot, it's Scam-a-lot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...

Ping...........

Workable links in #3.

Sorry about repeating the ping.


13 posted on 10/12/2010 12:59:16 PM PDT by melancholy (It ain't Camelot, it's Scam-a-lot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Depends on if it was a concert or a monster truck event.


14 posted on 10/12/2010 1:26:58 PM PDT by pennyfarmer (Even a RINO will chew its foot off when caught in a trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

What are you quoting? If it’s a law and not the Constitution, it does not apply. This is a good article to demonstrate what scholars thought in the 1800s. Gives an idea what the terms meant back then, not now, when people try to reinterpret the plain words of the Constitution. The INTENT of the Founders is what matters. And the reason WHY they believed it crucial that no president have divided loyalties. Thus, born on US soil to US citizen parentS.


15 posted on 10/12/2010 1:31:04 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Interesting discussions. The gray border case is that of a child born abroad to citizen parent(s). The case of child born in the US where one parent is a non-citizen is not a gray border case, it is in the area of settled cases. Such a child may become a citizen by law, but is NOT a natural born citizen.

Thus Obama is ineligible under the Law and there is no remedy for his case.

A Constitutional Amendment to change the requirements for Office would be the only remedy, and that is is an extremely unlikely event.

The editors eventually themselves settled on the more restrictive case that would exclude John McCain, or any other child of citizen Americans posted abroad in the service of their country. The editors decided that only those born in the US to citizen parents would be natural born citizens, although they noted other experts disputed that situation.


16 posted on 10/12/2010 1:39:31 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb; John O; pennyfarmer

It does work when you click on “We The People” box!!!


17 posted on 10/12/2010 1:44:27 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

That editorial discussion over the years 1880 through 1901 also corresponded to a mighty surge in immigration from the poorer areas of Europe, and the editorial stance must be taken as influenced by reactions to that surge.

See http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAEdecades.htm


18 posted on 10/12/2010 1:45:24 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

From a blogger:

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/obamas-make-believe-life.html


19 posted on 10/12/2010 1:47:57 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco

That’s a darned good one! Thanks for linking to it. factsnotfantasy, I mean.


20 posted on 10/12/2010 2:10:47 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Excellent catch. Pretty much what we’ve been saying all along and what the Supremes have been evading.


21 posted on 10/12/2010 2:19:14 PM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I know a lot of people that would have a severe problem with that. ;0)


22 posted on 10/12/2010 2:36:57 PM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR
Reading the relevant cites and court cases would alleviate that severe problem. Both parents must be citizens in order for their children to have natural-born citizen status. The citizenship of those parents can be acquired in any of the ways available to do so, including naturalization. But, they must both be citizens.

Futhermore, such children must be born in the United States for natural-born status without a doubt. See dicta from Minor v. Happersett for relevant information speaking directly to this.

It's really not that murky or difficult, unless one wants it to be for whatever reason, usually cheap labor on the right and transnational poppycock on the left.

23 posted on 10/12/2010 3:48:11 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Poppycock. ;0)


24 posted on 10/12/2010 5:55:59 PM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Well then I guess that if the Brooklyn Daily Eagle said it then the matter must be settled.


25 posted on 10/12/2010 5:59:08 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR

Believing that the legislature can change the Constitution by passing a law is what’s poppycock.


26 posted on 10/12/2010 6:07:32 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Poppycock. The Sequel. ;0)


27 posted on 10/12/2010 6:11:06 PM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb; All
How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER make appointments to the Supreme Court?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth, which is yet to be verified.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.
http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 
================================================================================================================================
 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though many could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
 
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 197 of 592) [Note: A ~22 MB PDF]:
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
Doctor Benjamin Franklin writes to M. Dumas, Philadelphia, December 19, 1775 (An example of just how important Vattel's "Law of Nations was to the founders)
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
John Jay, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States, leading opponent of slavery and the founder who wrote to George Washington regarding the suggestion that the POTUS be a NBC , had Vattel in his home library:
"One division [Of the library in Jay's "Bedford House"] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108. "
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
Undeniable Proof The Founders Translated "naturels" to "natural born" Six (6) Years BEFORE The Constitutional Convention!:
From the Library of Congress: Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 -- FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.


--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

 
The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from England's common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York Octr. 18. 1787:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."

George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."

Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

After the Constitution is ratified

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library.
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library, one of which was Emmerich de Vattel’s "Law of Nations."
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay reaffirms the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""

SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

--- NEWLY ADDED ---
Each and every one of the first 18 Presidents, with the exception of William Henry Harrison (#9) who was in office only 1 month (& died due to complications from a cold), from George Washington to U.S. Grant...ALL spoke of the "law of nations" in either an "Annual Message" (to Congress) and/or a "Special Message" or "Proclaimation!"
More recently, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and both Bush's referenced "law of nations." In all, at least 30 of the 44 (a number that includes the 2 Usurpers Arthur and Obama/Soetoro) spoke of the "law of nations" in a message or speach.

A few of the more notible POTUS references to "law of nations" are:


--- END NEWLY ADDED ---

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well aquinted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & alligience owed on to their child - by birthright).
 
This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients (including, but not limited to: Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donfrio)

28 posted on 10/12/2010 6:36:01 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR
If you believe the Constitution can be altered by legislation, well, I just can't help you ... *wink*
29 posted on 10/12/2010 6:53:57 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bvw
The editors eventually themselves settled on the more restrictive case that would exclude John McCain, or any other child of citizen Americans posted abroad in the service of their country. The editors decided that only those born in the US to citizen parents would be natural born citizens, although they noted other experts disputed that situation.

And for good reason as Britain still held a lot of territory in which the feudal law of jus soli & perpetual allegiance was still in effect thus making many foreign born children aliens of their parents. Imagine giving birth in a British state & having a child that must get permission from Parliament at the coming of age in order to renounce the perpetual hold that govt has on the person.

The US adopted the combination of jus soli & jus sanguinis as it is defined in Vattel, Pufendorf, Locke, Grotius, Montesquieu, Aristotle, De Tocqueville, etc, etc going all the way back to original Republican govt of Rome. It was the original law of England until shortly after the Norman conquest when feudal law was put in place that took the sovereignty from the people & place it with the king.

30 posted on 10/12/2010 7:34:21 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born . The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.


31 posted on 10/12/2010 7:37:26 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born . The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.


The Fourteenth Amendment changed that position. That’s why the Founders made it possible to alter their views and their work in later generations.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

George W.Bush appointed a second generation anchor baby: Alberto Gonzales to be the US chief law enforcement officer as Attorney General of the United States and he appointed a Muslim anchor baby from Afghanistan, Dr. Zalmay Khalilziad to be United States ambassador to the United Nations.

“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” —Supreme Court of the United States, “US v Wong Kim Ark” (1898)

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—1789, Congressman James Madison, Founding Father, Primary author of the US Constitution and soon to become the 4th President of the United States.


32 posted on 10/12/2010 8:30:58 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The 14 th amendment did not address Natural born Citizenship as required by Article 2. The wording “Subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the allegiance of the parents. If a person born in the U.S. has parents that owe their allegiance to the U.S. , then they are citizens.


33 posted on 10/12/2010 9:43:30 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—1789, Congressman James Madison, Founding Father, Primary author of the US Constitution and soon to become the 4th President of the United States.

Still citing that edited & taken out of context quote you cut & pasted from DrConspiracy or one of the other left wing propaganda sites I see.

34 posted on 10/13/2010 12:21:11 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Are you male or female? If you are a male, you have a serious problem. ;0)


35 posted on 10/13/2010 3:54:29 AM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR

I’d say the problem is yours. You do understand the emoticon you’ve used repeatedly?


36 posted on 10/13/2010 8:32:04 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Still citing that edited & taken out of context quote you cut & pasted from DrConspiracy or one of the other left wing propaganda sites I see.


Here’s a link to MY source, “The Founder’s Constitution” web site and the link provides everyone the opportunity to read James Madison’s entire statement.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


37 posted on 10/13/2010 8:54:17 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
"Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born . The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S."

That is wrong. The act only addressed those born outside the borders.

38 posted on 10/13/2010 8:59:44 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: melancholy; pennyfarmer; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...
Of course, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is not a "Natural Born Citizen." We knew that in 2006. BHO, Jr., a name he may be using legally, or illegally, admitted as much in a debate with Alan Keyes. He said, and I paraphrase here, not quote, "I don't have to be a Natural Born Citizen to run for the Senate."

Of course, he was correct. One however, does have to be a US Citizen. So this started the whole "born in Hawaii," deal. It is a brilliant smokescreen and has been tremendously successful. It night ... just might ... be true, too. But "Native Born" citizenship does not = "Natural Born Citizenship."

The entire GOP fell down on this point. Me? I blame George Bush. It was ultimately his responsibility to defend COTUS from fake POTUS candidates. Now, 2 years later, an ineligible candidate has (a) been certified to appear on the ballots of 50 states, (b) has won the popular vote, (c) has secured the vote of the Electoral College, (d) been sworn in by the SCOTUS (e) and sitteth on the throne whence he judges the living and the dead.

He is the sitting POTUS. He was ineligible to run for the office, but now occupies it.

What can we do about it? The amended Constitution says that a Federal Officer's bona fides can be ascertained by seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto, which can be sought ONLY in the Federal District Court of Washington, DC. Whatever the outcome of that case, it will be appealed. If (i.e. IF) the SCOTUS (now influenced by the staffs of 2 Marxist lesbians) finds him ineligible, they cannot remove him. That can only be done by Impeachment in the House, Conviction in the Senate, a finding of "incompetence" by the Congress, or by the unlikely event of resignation. I don't even want to think about the consequences of the SCOTUS finding him ELIGIBLE! That is possible, you know?

The application for a Writ of Quo Warranto has not yet been accepted, much less heard. In the meantime, there is no EFFECTIVE Program, Plan, or Leader to hold the POTUS in check while the legalities play out. We'll have the House. BFD. He'll have the Senate and the power and our economiuc decline will continue.

Needed: One State Legislature, 1 Governor, to keep Obama off any 2012 ballot in any state on the grounds of constitutional ineligibility. Let's hope that (a) we find a decent candidate, and (b) the scandal caused would damage the Clinton-Soros team enough to cause them to lose.

The endlessly interesting eligibility debates are in a certain sense, a waste of bloody time. We need to focus on exactly what it is the elected Republicans in the House intend to do with the power they will receive from the voters in 2010. As a freeper, I should know that. I read this and other sites every day. Why is it that I do not?

Everyday, I am bombarded with negative messages about Obama, and his administration. OK. I agree. Now what do WE do about it? Unless that question gets answered, I fear a Democrat POTUS again in 2012.

39 posted on 10/13/2010 9:06:42 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Revive The Poll Tax and Literacy Requirement for voter registration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bvw

“The case of child born in the US where one parent is a non-citizen is not a gray border case, it is in the area of settled cases. Such a child may become a citizen by law, but is NOT a natural born citizen.”

You haven’t read the Constitution, have you?


40 posted on 10/13/2010 9:15:11 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Sure. They were predecessors of the new arbiter of “truth”, the New York Times.

This is a compilation of news stories from the 19th century that give insight into the meaning of those terms (common citizen, natural born citizen, naturalized citizen) and how scholars of that time thought about these issues. They shed some light on original intent. And demonstrate that no LAW can give someone citizenship. If a person’s citizenship derives from ANY law, then that person is not a “natural born” citizen.

Did you even read the full article? If you did, then you will see that it’s unbiased. A variety of opinions were presented.


41 posted on 10/13/2010 9:20:23 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

omegadawn said, “Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born.”

Does it? If so, then how can one explain that decades later, scholars of the late 19th century wrote otherwise? NO LAW can change the Constitution.

omegadawn said, “The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.”

Therefore, Obama, being an admitted British subject at birth, was born into the allegiance of another country and is ineligible for the presidency.

Both of your quotes say parents. Plural. Both parents not U.S. citizens, therefore: ineligible. Born on U.S. soil? Fact not in evidence.


42 posted on 10/13/2010 9:30:23 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

The 14 th amendment did not address Natural born Citizenship as required by Article 2. The wording “Subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the allegiance of the parents. If a person born in the U.S. has parents that owe their allegiance to the U.S. , then they are citizens.


The only persons in America who aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are those with diplomatic immunity and members of a foreign occupying military. Everyone else in America, even illegal aliens, is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That’s why our prisons are overflowing with criminal illegals who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” while prosecuted for committing crimes on US soil.

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there are only two classes of US citizens under the law of the land: (1)Citizens at birth (which is identical to natural born citizens) and (2)naturalized citizens. Citizens at birth can become president, naturalized citizens cannot become president.
Here’s a link to the current law of the land on who is a “National and Citizen of the United States at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

The following is the key relevant section of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in the 1898 case of “US v Wong Kim Ark,” the landmark post 14th Amendment decision on US citizenship:
“The 14th Amendment, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

The Supreme Court went on to declare in the Wong Kim Ark decision that: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the Court upon facts agreed to by both parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are carrying on business, and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States. For reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)


Nowhere in the Constitution or in any law ever passed by Congress is there reference to two American citizen parents being required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen.


43 posted on 10/13/2010 9:33:35 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. The 14th amendment did NOT change the requirements of the Constitution with regard to NATURAL BORN citizenship. It addressed common citizenship. Read the extensive comments at the WTPOTUS blog for clarification. Please don’t just cut and paste someone else’s incorrect arguments.


44 posted on 10/13/2010 9:41:49 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Yo, are are a government certified idiot on some sort of disability welfare or just pretending to be one?


45 posted on 10/13/2010 9:46:38 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

You’re simply wrong, James. Jurisdiction has various meanings; you’re using the wrong definition. Allegiance. Loyalty. Subjectship. Citizenship. That’s the point.


46 posted on 10/13/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

jamese777: Your own quote says “parents”. Plural. The person in question, born to two non-citizens, was recognized as a “citizen”. A common citizen. NOT a natural born citizen.

The 14th amendment did NOT change the definition of natural born citizen. IF it did, then why decades later were scholars and journalists writing otherwise?

How about a link to this Wong Kim Ark decision so that we know the source of the quotes you provide? Are these quotes part of the RULING or are they extraneous comments by, perhaps, dissenters to the ruling?


47 posted on 10/13/2010 9:57:07 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Oh, you hurt my feelings. :0(

Look up “tongue in cheek”, You might be surprised to learn ;0) has other meanings. Wikipedia- “The ironic usage originates with the idea of suppressed mirth- biting one’s tongue to prevent an outburst of laughter”. ;0)

Made you change the subject. “grin”

48 posted on 10/13/2010 10:01:13 AM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Why, in your quote, do they mention that the parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S.? Was Obama’s purported father permanently domiciled here? No. As a matter of fact, neither was his “mother”.


49 posted on 10/13/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson

Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. The 14th amendment did NOT change the requirements of the Constitution with regard to NATURAL BORN citizenship. It addressed common citizenship. Read the extensive comments at the WTPOTUS blog for clarification. Please don’t just cut and paste someone else’s incorrect arguments.


You are entitled to your personal opinion on that however in one of the 72 already adjudicated lawsuits that have challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility, the Court of Appeals of the state of Indiana ruled (and I quote their decision)
“Based on the language of Article II, Section I, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude the persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section I purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—
Ankeny et.al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

To date, no other state or federal court has ruled otherwise.


50 posted on 10/13/2010 10:03:11 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson