Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Research - Vattel & the meaning of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen"
Numerous ^ | 5/12/2010 | many

Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 from the U.S. Constitution states:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: certifigate; constitution; framers; naturalborncitizen; nbc; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-533 next last
From where did the framers get the definition for the Constitutional term "Natural   Born    Citizen" as written in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

Vattel!

1 posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:54 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

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 most 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 248 of 592):
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"

Prior to the Constitution

"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."

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

U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

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."

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.

After the Constitution

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) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
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..

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 stated:
"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, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" 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).

2 posted on 05/12/2010 12:38:10 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]

"Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219);"

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New York, 28 US 99 - Supreme Court 1830

3 posted on 05/12/2010 12:41:19 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 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Ping!

"Research - Vattel & the meaning of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen"

4 posted on 05/12/2010 12:42:40 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 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya (part of the United Kingdom in those days) all his life. Obama was born a UK citizen. Not a NBC. FAIL!

5 posted on 05/12/2010 12:48:59 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; El Gato; BP2; Spaulding
A comparison between a "Natural Born Subject" from one of the Spanish colonies in America, to a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S. in 1793?
"The facts were these: Francis Villato was born within the dominions of the King of Spain; he came from New Orleans to Philadelphia in the beginning of the year 1793, and, on the 11th of May following, he took and subscribed, before the Mayor of the City, the oath specified in the third section of the act of Assembly, passed on the 13th of March 1789. 2 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 676. He afterwards went to the West Indies, entered on board a French privateer, and acted as prize-master of the American brig John of New York, which the privateer had taken, while he was on board, and procured to be libelled and condemned at Cape Francois.

...

If, then, the act of assembly is in force, an alien naturalized under it, having the rights of the old, is in a situation preferable to a natural born citizen under the accumulative restraints of the new constitution."

The United States v. Villato (Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1797)
6 posted on 05/12/2010 1:11:05 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 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains, and consequently can never be construed to violate neutral rights, or to affect neutral commerce, further than is warranted by the law of nations as understood in this country."
Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 US 64 - Supreme Court 1804 (Chief Justice Marshall)
7 posted on 05/12/2010 1:23:40 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 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Photobucket
8 posted on 05/12/2010 1:46:27 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Doesn't that contradict Vattel's definition?

9 posted on 05/12/2010 2:12:15 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kleon; bushpilot1; All
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Doesn't that contradict Vattel’s definition?

Actually no, in fact it holds the Law of Nations/Nature in its purest form. That is, that citizenship is derived by heredity from the parent, not that of the soil which is the feudal definition. Natural law as laid out in the law of nations was & is the code of International law but not all countries held fast to it as they do today. Even merry ole England has now dropped their feudal form and changed their laws to state that children born to aliens are not English citizens at birth.

However, during the revolution, it was England's feudal definition that had to be contended with. American citizens who traveled to England and other countries that still practiced feudal citizenship were subject to having foreign citizenship forced upon their children born there. Those children were registered and during the war of 1812, the Brits would board ships and any male found to have been born in England, regardless of parentage was taken and forced into the British Army. But is wasn't always that way. When England was founded, it was the citizenship laws of nature/nations that was originally founded and that is the ancient laws the founders spoke of and the laws they put in place for the new country.

10 posted on 05/12/2010 3:17:28 PM PDT by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: patlin
Actually no, in fact it holds the Law of Nations/Nature in its purest form. That is, that citizenship is derived by heredity from the parent, not that of the soil which is the feudal definition.

I'm talking about the specific quote from Law of Nations, which is tossed around here a lot, which says a natural-born citizen is "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

It seems to me that the first Congress contradicted this definition when they said someone born outside the country could be a NBC.

11 posted on 05/12/2010 3:23:11 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

I got it, sorry, I confused the issue. You are correct, the 1790 wording did contradict that and it was repealed in 1795. In Madison’s papers, he goes into how the 1790 Act was too lax and thus it was changed in 1795.


12 posted on 05/12/2010 3:31:07 PM PDT by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: patlin; Kleon
Of course, the Naturalization 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. That is, use their Constitutional powers for creating laws on Naturalization to modify the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen." Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to modify or 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.
13 posted on 05/12/2010 4:11:52 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 12 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
I have been reading through some of Madison’s later papers and it is quite astonishing how many American citizens at the time of the revolution went abroad after the war and remained there. Some raised their children there and then the children would come to the US at their coming of age and it was a cause of great strain as with them came the political views of these feudal governments. Thus, since 1795, any child born abroad to US citizens and who's parents do not return to the US to raise the child and educate them here are accountable to follow US immigration laws. The children on the coming of age must take an oath to the the US & Constitution and renounce any allegiance to the country they were raised in before they are allowed a passport. Atleast that is the way the law is supposed to work, that is until the late 60’s and the exploding progressive movement's usurpation of it.
14 posted on 05/12/2010 4:31:39 PM PDT by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Doesn't that contradict Vattel's definition?

Yes, of "natural born citizen" at least, except in the case of children born to military or diplomats serving the nation, but outside of it. It may have been an attempt to extend just plain old citizenship to such persons, and later they realized they had overstepped in trying to define a Constitutional term. In fact in 1795 they dropped the "Natural Born" language when they repealed the 1790 and replaced it. The language is thus no longer in effect and has never appeared again in the statutes. The relevant part of 1795 Naturalization act follows.

(It's in Section 3, on the next page.)

...; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and juridiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, Theat the right of citizenship shall not descent to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Vattell however would have such persons be born citizens:

From Law of Nations, Book I, section 215:

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Of course BHO Sr, did no such thing, He did not "quit his country", but rather returned to it after completing his educatoinal sojurn in the US.

15 posted on 05/12/2010 4:42:24 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“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 investigate any other.”—Document 6, James Madison, House of Representatives; 22 May 1789
Papers 12:179—82


16 posted on 05/12/2010 5:24:38 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

Justice Story, concurring opinion, “Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”


17 posted on 05/12/2010 5:27:50 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
18 posted on 05/12/2010 5:28:23 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
19 posted on 05/12/2010 5:31:57 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
another FReeper, bushpilot1 has discovered, in the Journals of the Continental Congress --FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

a trade agreement between the US and France, with the agreement shown in both English and French. Within it, "naturels" is translated as "natural born". In this case refering to subjects/sujets.

In French.

ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.

And in English

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.

And there you have it. Naturels was understood as "Natural Born". Thus the later translation better reflects what the founders, many of whom were quite literate in French, would have understood.

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. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. becomes in English, as understood by the founding generation(s)(Franklin was much older than most, but was one of the francophones):

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

We also know that the founders had access to several copies of "Law of Nations" in French. We do not know if the delegates had a copy in English. We do know that Jay was a French speaker as well (in fact his paternal grandfather was from France). I can't find the referance now, but I recall that he had more than one edition of "Law of Nations", in French.

20 posted on 05/12/2010 5:41:20 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Pls capture this one and post. Txs.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen


21 posted on 05/12/2010 5:49:57 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
jay hand letter
22 posted on 05/12/2010 6:02:11 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
23 posted on 05/12/2010 6:03:50 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
24 posted on 05/12/2010 6:05:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
25 posted on 05/12/2010 6:06:40 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
26 posted on 05/12/2010 6:09:24 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
27 posted on 05/12/2010 6:13:54 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
28 posted on 05/12/2010 6:17:29 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
29 posted on 05/12/2010 6:21:10 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
30 posted on 05/12/2010 6:24:10 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Once again:

“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).”

Yep, you have to be born a citizen of the US. That was the intent. And Obama was born a citizen of the US. Hamilton does NOT add “born of two citizen parents”.

“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...”

Yep, no foreigners, but someone born a US citizen.

Vattel, as you well know, does NOT make reference to natural born citizen. Vattel used two words: “Naturels” and “Indigenes”. Neither was translated in English versions written prior to the Constitution. In a translation written AFTER the Constitution, the first is translated “natives”.

For the second:

Indigenous is defined as

“1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
2. innate; inherent; natural (usually fol. by to): feelings indigenous to human beings.”

Its derivation is...

“1640–50; < L indigen(a) native, original inhabitant (indi-, by-form of in- in-2 (cf. indagate) + -gena, deriv. from base of gignere to bring into being; cf. genital, genitor) + -ous”

Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.”

So I think a translation of “the native, or indigenous person” is vastly superior to “the native, or natural born citizen”. The word Vattel used and that the Founders were familiar with is the root of indigenous. The idea that the Founder read the French word for indigenous (literally) and thought “natural born citizen” is laughable.

“”THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)”

Actually, the phrase natural born citizen is not found in the decision. At least, my computer couldn’t find it...

“SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)”

Actually, the phrase NBC is found twice - once in describing the lady, and once in this passage:

“There is indeed one prominent difficulty hanging over this argument which it is impossible to remove. If it proves any thing, it proves too much, since the inference, if resulting at all, must extend to put off one’s allegiance, as well to adopted citizens as to natural born citizens, and to all times and all circumstances.”

Notice it envisions two sources of citizenship - natural born and adopted. It does NOT envision 3 classes, with the special class of “born of two citizen parents”.

“MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)”

Actually, it says:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

To repeat: “Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” - thus supporting TWO types of citizenship, one by birth and one by adoption.

Specifically addressing NBC, it says, “...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts...”

So it leaves open the debate it acknowledges existed at the time: does a NBC require two citizen parents, or not. It makes NO attempt to resolve that question.

“The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” 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).”

As you well know, the argument making up the first 4-5 pages of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) discusses it at length, and makes it clear they consider WKA a natural born subject.

The dissent included acknowledgment of that, saying, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

Yes, that is “dicta”, but it has been followed by subsequent decisions for over 100 years. It forms the basis for the Indiana courts deciding that Obama IS a natural born citizen:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Just a few facts that your repeated posting doesn’t account for...


31 posted on 05/12/2010 6:32:45 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=prgyAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&output=text

THE

CLASSICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Edited By
James Brown Scott

Member of the Institute of International Law
President of the American Institute of International Law

Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,
appliqués à la Conduite et aux Affaires des
Nations et des Souverains

By E. De Vattel

Volume I.—A Photographie Reproduction of Books I and II of the
First Edition (1758), with an Introduction by Albert
de Lapradelle.

II.—A Photographie Reproduction of Books III and IV of the
First Edition (1758).

III.—Translation of the Edition of 1758 (by Charles G. Fen-
wick), with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle.

LE DROIT DES GENS

OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE

Appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des
Nations et des Souverains

Par M. De Vattel
With An Introduction By Albert De Lapradelle

Prof essor of International Law in the U niversity of Paris

VOLUME TWO
Reproduction Of Books III And IV Of Edition Of 1758


32 posted on 05/12/2010 6:56:27 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=DLeQH83Br7wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Vattel&lr=&as_brr=1&hl=en&cd=18#v=onepage&q=les%20naturels&f=false

1758 Vattel Des Citoyens & Naturels page 333


33 posted on 05/12/2010 7:19:24 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
34 posted on 05/12/2010 7:26:27 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Photobucket
35 posted on 05/12/2010 7:31:32 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; El Gato; BP2; STARWISE

The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States

Pretty much explains natural born and what is not natural born.

published 1858

Vattel cited

http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&sitesec=reviews&id=OVjw5yjk2VoC


36 posted on 05/12/2010 8:22:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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 investigate any other.”

It's considered proper to provide a link, so that people can read your quote in context.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6, James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789Papers 12:179--82.

As the title indicates this speech was about Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2. which reads:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

It was not about "natural born citizenship, but rather citizenship at the time of the Declaration of independence.

the "in general" in your a quote. Madison is saying "citizenship" is determined by place of birth, not natural born citzenship, which doesn't even enter into the criteria of eligibility to the House of Representatives.

37 posted on 05/12/2010 9:50:38 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
ep, you have to be born a citizen of the US. That was the intent. And Obama was born a citizen of the US. Hamilton does NOT add “born of two citizen parents”.

But Hamiliton's language was not adopted, Jay's was, at least as far as the "natural born citizen" requirement.

The term was well known to the founders, it had to be, else there would have been debate about it's incorporation. There was no debate.

38 posted on 05/12/2010 10:02:16 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Mr Rogers

If it was well known to the founders, then what was its definition at the time?

Was it Vattel’s? That seems unlikely given the fact, as Mr Rogers pointed out, that no English translation of Vattel’s work extant at the time the Constitution was drafted contained the phrase “natural born citizen.”

Or was it Blackstone’s? Blackstone’s work, as it existed at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, did define the term “natural born subject.” Blackstone was, of course, well-read by and extensively cited by the Founders. John Jay himself was one of the original subscribers.


39 posted on 05/12/2010 10:30:32 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“The term was well known to the founders, it had to be, else there would have been debate about it’s incorporation. There was no debate.”

Yet it was NOT known from Vattel, since no translation used it at the time, nor is it a very accurate translation of the French.

That leaves common law...


40 posted on 05/12/2010 10:32:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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 investigate any other.”
It’s considered proper to provide a link, so that people can read your quote in context.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6, James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789Papers 12:179—82.

As the title indicates this speech was about Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2. which reads:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

It was not about “natural born citizenship, but rather citizenship at the time of the Declaration of independence.

the “in general” in your a quote. Madison is saying “citizenship” is determined by place of birth, not natural born citzenship, which doesn’t even enter into the criteria of eligibility to the House of Representatives.


There is no distinction between a citizen-at-birth and a natural born citizen that has ever been codified in the law of the land or rendered in any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Therefore James Madison’s opinion applies.


41 posted on 05/12/2010 10:38:38 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

mark


42 posted on 05/12/2010 11:05:02 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

ctr


43 posted on 05/12/2010 11:06:10 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

ARTICLE III

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.

3
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.

A Philadelphie le 24 Juillet, 1781.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html type naturels


44 posted on 05/13/2010 12:40:38 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
“...as Mr. Rogers points out, that no English translation of Vattel’s work extant at the time the Constitution was drafted”

Replying to trolls serves the purpose of informing others so let's clear up this lie: There were between 1759 and 1834 ten translations of his (Vattel’s) work in England, and from 1796 until 1872 eighteen translations, or reprints of translations, published in the United States.

Vattel was by far the most quoted legal source in pleadings in American cases, by almost a factor of 4, between 1790 and 1820. (Nussbaums Concise History of the Law of Nations, 1962).

Most lawyers and every framer understood Vattel during the Continental Congress and particularly afterword because Vattel served as the principal reference in the writing of the Constitution. Jefferson taught the course on Vattel beginning in 1779 at William and Mary. Madison was President of William and Mary, and future chief justice John Marshall a student. Vattel was used at virtually every college offering legal studies since it is by far the most authoritative source of maritime and international law, in addition to providing the structure for the U.S. government. (Read it. There are a number of sites with the entire text on line and an elegant paper binding by Liberty Fund available from Amazon.)

British common law is law by and for an oligarchy, changed at the will of the crown and privy council. England has no written constitution unless you count the Magna Carta, which most English ignored for five hundred years. The meaning of natural born subject was of particular interest because it defined legal heirs. Changes in the definition usually followed the birth overseas of someone with royal blood. The idea of a Constitutional government was described by Vattel. We are its Guinea pigs, and are seeing its weaknesses.
This nonsense about translations is the usual obot diversion. One of framers, a President between the Revolution and the ratification, Dr. David Ramsay, restated the definition perfectly clearly in an essay after he had returned to his medical practice. It is Vattel’s definition, and there has never been another. (You can find the Ramsay essay in the latest appendix to the Kerchner/Appuzo appeal at http://puzo1.blogspot.com )

Another way to understand “born on the soil of citizen parents” is to consider that the phrase, not a new idea by any means, was assigned to several words early in its history. Vattel could have, and did say, jus soli AND jus sanguinis - from the soil AND from the blood, but appears to have coined the term natural born citizen for clarity and convenience. (There is a lenthy analysis of the origin of the term in an essay by Greshak for which Apusso has a pointer). But it is the meaning that counts, the phrase. The history is clear and our leaders are afraid to impose the constraints upon only our president and vice president that define a Constitutional president.

Since Barack Obama told us that he wanted a new bill of rights and to rewrite the Constitution, he has been true to his word. Obama doesn't care whether or not he is a Constitutional president because he and his regime planned thoroughly so that no legal authority would challenge him. By the time he is finished the Constitution will have even less validity than the window dressing it now provides to some federal cases. With it will fall the 1st and 2nd amendments, which are already under attack. By ignoring his ineligibility we are invalidating the protections guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution. He correctly predicted that and is being proved correct.

45 posted on 05/13/2010 2:54:42 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; El Gato

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=990CE0DC153BE233A25751C1A96F9C946496D6CF


46 posted on 05/13/2010 3:03:39 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight; Spaulding

The answer to your question, Pack Knight, can be found in the following links. Let’s say for the purposes of discussion that Vattel’s word “indigenes” had been left untranslated from the French into the English version until after the Constitution was written. And then the translators took the phrase “natural born citizen” from the Constitution and inserted it in place of “indigenes” in Vattel’s work a few years later.

So what???

The fact that the French/English translators of Vattel’s work settled on the English phrase “natural born citizen” for the French word “indigenes” right at the time that the Constitution was being circulated and read far and wide is a solid indication that the two were equivalent in meaning and inextricably intertwined.

It is actually an academic exercise of futility as to which came first — the word or the meaning — like the chicken or the egg???? Which came first to Vattel’s mind ??? the word “indigenes” or the meaning of the word “indigenes”???

What is relevant is that early on, while both were being popularly read and studied, the two merged and settled down with each other, and none of the Framers of the Constitution ever objected. One Supreme Court Justice used the word “indigenes” in his writings and another used its English equivalent “natural born citizen” — and no one ever objected or disputed it. They meant the same thing then and throughout American history —

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/02/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/10/lifelong-democrat-breckinridge-long-natural-born-citizen-means-born-on-the-soil-to-a-father-who-is-a-citizen/

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution


47 posted on 05/13/2010 7:18:22 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; The Pack Knight; Uncle Chip

“Replying to trolls serves the purpose of informing others so let’s clear up this lie: “

If you have evidence I’m mistaken, please present it. Every source I’ve found says the first time Vattel was translated using NBC was AFTER the Constitution was written.

If I am wrong about that, show me and I’ll retract the statement and argument. Until then, please try to answer arguments instead of the much more typical name calling.

“One of framers, a President between the Revolution and the ratification, Dr. David Ramsay, restated the definition perfectly clearly in an essay after he had returned to his medical practice. It is Vattel’s definition, and there has never been another.”

Beats me - I’ve never read Ramsey. Others defined it differently, using it as the equivalent of born inside the USA. That is why there is a dispute - different folks used it in different ways. I could pull up ample quotes from people and lawyers in the same time frame that used it in the sense WKA argued for - hence the dispute.

“The fact that the French/English translators of Vattel’s work settled on the English phrase “natural born citizen” for the French word “indigenes” right at the time that the Constitution was being circulated and read far and wide is a solid indication that the two were equivalent in meaning and inextricably intertwined.”

Not hardly. If it were, it would have been translated thus from the beginning. All it shows is one translator used it AFTER the Constitution was written. And since “Indigenous” is the transliterated form of Vattel’s French, it obviously conveys the meaning well - except then the whole “Vattel is Scripture” movement falls apart...


48 posted on 05/13/2010 7:41:51 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

<>Beats me - I’ve never read Ramsey.<>

Here, read it and learn:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/02/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

<>If it were, it would have been translated thus from the beginning. All it shows is one translator used it AFTER the Constitution was written.<>

And why would he do that if they did not mean the same thing??? And other translators followed. And there was no dispute.

And what makes you think that it wasn’t that way in earlier translations??? Where did John Jay get the phrase “natural born citizen” and how come Washington adn the other Framers understood it enough to put it into Article II and then into the Immigration Act of 1790???

By your reasoning we should all abandon the word “Christ” since it was at some point substituted for the word “Messiah” by some Greek translator well after he had come. It’s ludicrous.


49 posted on 05/13/2010 8:14:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

“And what makes you think that it wasn’t that way in earlier translations??? Where did John Jay get the phrase “natural born citizen” and how come Washington adn the other Framers understood it enough to put it into Article II and then into the Immigration Act of 1790???”

I don’t think it was that way in earlier translations because I’ve seen earlier translations, and they don’t attempt to translate the word. This also agrees with what El Gato has posted, and I trust him even while we disagree.

Where did John Jay get the phrase? Several court rulings indicate they think it came from natural born subject, and another birther posted an extract from that time frame where the French read ‘natural subject’ and it was translated as ‘natural born citizen’. The guy posting it thought it proved natural means NBC, while I think the phrase natural subject would reasonably be translated NBC, if the natural born subject theory is true.

SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U. S. 242 (1830) tends to support this. It uses phrases like “British born subjects” instead of just British subject. The woman was considered a citizen even after her marriage to a Brit:

“The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the State of South Carolina, because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.”

Also, “If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”

Thus subject and citizen are interchangeable, depending on the form of government.


50 posted on 05/13/2010 8:44:22 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-533 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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