That you were born in a military hospital in Germany does not disqualify you from being a “natural born Citizen,” provided you were born to U.S. “citizen” parents who were in Germany serving the national defense of the United States. If this is true, you would have been born in Germany to parents who were U.S. “citizens” and serving in the armies of the state. Emer de Vattel at Section 217 of The Law of Nations (1758) informs that someone born under such circumstances is “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” We know from the historical record and case law that the law of nations became part of our national law and therefore part of “the Laws of the United States.” Article III, Section 2. There are several U.S. Supreme Court cases that have cited and quoted Vattel regarding matters of U.S. citizenship, especially on defining a “natural-born citizen.” Moreover, the First Congress in 1790 in the Naturalization Act of 1790 expressed a desire that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents be “considered as natural born citizens.” It is true that Congress, ever since 1795 with the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed the language from “natural born citizen” to just “citizen of the United States.” This shows that early Congress, many members of which were Founders and Framers, had every intention to carefully distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” revealing that, with the limited exception under the grandfather clause which expired with children born after the adoption of the Constitution, only the former were to be eligible to be President and not the latter. But again, the limiting language only applies to those children born out of the United States. Since a valid argument can be made under American common law that you were born in the United States, you do not fall into the “citizen of the United States” class, but rather into the “natural born Citizen” class.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Many use Vattel’s work, “The Law if Nations” to explain and confirm the meaning of Natural Born status. The fact is that the Eligibilty clause already states that Natural Born must be equivalent to the second part of the clause....
Natural Born OR (Implying equivalency) living in the country at the time of the adoption of Constitution.
On June 21, 1787, the first day of our nation, all persons living in the country on that day became U.S. citizens by default.
So then, Natural Born citizen status must be equivalent to the first US citizens of June 21, 1787. So as long as they were at least 35 years of age they were eligible to be elected POTUS.
Why didn’t the framers insert “Native Born citizen, or just “citizen”, or why any clause at all? They chose the term “Natural Born” after Jon Jay expressed concern to George Washington about allowing foreign influence into the office of POTUS.
So why would the Eligibility clause be interpreted so loosely? It is the highest office in the United States of America and should be held only by someone that has no potential foreign influence and full allegiance only to the U.S..
Marco Rubio was Born in 1971. His parents were residing here legally, but did not become citizens until 1975. Marco Rubio is a native born citizen, not natural born and is NOT eligible to run for POTUS, but he attempted to do so in 2016.
Ted Cruz was Born in Canada. His father was not a U.S. citizen. Though his mother was a U.S. citizen, she chose to move to Canada where Ted was Born. Ted holds dual citizenship and has potential foreign influence from his father and is not eligible to run for POTUS.
Obama was not eligible to be POTUS. He was the first president elected that did not have two U.S. citizen patents.