[etraveler13]

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen" IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN by John Charlton

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/ Reference links at bottom of page....

Emmerich de Vattel, c/o Online Library of Liberty (Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has

given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective

qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what

this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the

irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of

the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations,

written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural

born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children

of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the

French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country,

of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is

by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin,

indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the

indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term,

“natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of

that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of

citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George

Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete

their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the

American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took

part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in

5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant

Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the

British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or

nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of

Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George

Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington

was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American

citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a

prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the

French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

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.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.

Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are

obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters

of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of

whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave

the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a

“natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and

remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the

Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does

not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South

Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the

citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father,

partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established,

and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so

that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears

to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register

to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in

that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the

court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of

the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as

anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation

to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and

foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In

this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other

category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties

accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or

State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because

unconstitutionally.

References:

About Emer de Vattel http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3987&Itemid=28

The law of Nations - Vattel http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&dq=Emmerich+de+Vattel+The+Law+of+Nations&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=

it&ei=tdfaSsH1HIuk4Qbb6pn1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

SCOTUS before 1900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_appointed_before_1900

Venus Case http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Shanks vs. Dupont http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#162

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649

[pabianice]

Geez... how about the one sentence version?

[reasonisfaith]

Which Supreme Court case establishes that we shouldn’t question the entire background of a candidate or an office holder, especially when there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggesting a coverup of his background?

[raymcc]

Your begining attaches to the original article. You don’t have to cut and paste the ENTIRE article as well

[Las Vegas Ron]

NBC Ping!

[votemout]

It is difficult for me to believe that the founders intended anyone to be president whose father was a british subject and who was born after the revolutionary war.

[MindBender26]

This is all legal hokum

The governing law is very simple: It is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

IMPORTANT: Natural Born does not mean Native Born.

Natural Born means a citizen at the moment of birth by conditions or parentage and birth, not a persona who was made a citizen by application later, i.e. one who was “naturalized” i.e, made as if Natural

[bgill]

Already posted and discussed, but it’s good to return sometimes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2425480/posts

[MindBender26]

Deriving legal opinions from non-lawyer blog posters such as John Charlton isn't just wrong, it's dangerous.

If he knew enough to do the research for this article, then he knew what the law is, and ignored it.

8 USC 1401 is governing law in this. Period.

[Windflier]

"...the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin)."

That's huge. I had no idea that Ben Franklin testified to the fact that the Framers consulted Vattel's work while drafting the Constitution. That is very important.

[thecodont]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Constitution of the United States

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 5

"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."

"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;…"

"Of course, you can attain the office by FRAUD…if you can get away with it…"

"Ha, hah."

[GBA]

So...let me see if I understand what defines a Natural Born Citizen from what you've posted:

Someone born in the United States of America to American citizens.

In the time of our framers, primary importance seems to be placed upon the father and his citizenship over that of the mother.

Hmmm...so even if obama was born in Hawaii, though no one can prove it, his father was not an American citizen. Then...

Even if obama was born in Hawaii, though no one can prove it, obama would be a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore inelligible to be the President of the United States of America per Constitutional requirement.

The only way obama is a Natural Born Citizen is if his daddy isn't who he says he is, but is an American citizen.

So...now what???

[machogirl]

That was a nice analysis. Thanks for posting it.

[wideminded]

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, ... every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ... The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established." - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Although this case did not turn of the issue of the definition of natural born citizen, it was a 7-2 decision and the majority signed off on the above definition instead of the Vattel one. This would seem to mean that anyone bringing a Supreme court case against Obama on eligibility grounds would have to be prepared to overcome this precedent.

I have heard Scalia saying that the only foreign law he looks to in deciding a case is the English Common Law. Perhaps that means that he would favor the definition of "natural-born" given in the above case over the Vattel one.

[jamese777]

FYI: Barack Obama Eligibility Lawsuits
Last Updated March 8, 2010.

Case /Court /Status
“Allen v. Soetoro” (Freedom of Information Act) Arizona District: FILED

“American Grand Jury” (Ellis) TN Middle: Dismissed

“American Grand Jury” (Laity, Campbell) NY West: Rejected

“Ankeny v. Daniels” (and McCain) Indiana State: Dismissed; Appeal Indiana Court of Appeals: Dismissal Affirmed

“Barnett v Obama, formerly Keyes v Obama et al” Fed CA Central Filed; 09-56827; Appeal by Robinson/Drake; 10-55084 Appeal filed by Taitz 9th Circuit: PENDING The Court consolidated appeals 09-56827 and 10-55084 28-June-2010

“Berg v. Obama et al” Fed PA Eastern Dismissed, 08-4340 3rd Circuit Appeals Dismissed; SCOTUS Denied

Berg v. Obama Fed DC District: Dismissed; 09-5362 DC Circuit: APPEALED

“Beverly v. FEC” CA Eastern District: Dismissed ; 09-15562 9th Circuit: Appeals Dismissed 09-794 SCOTUS: PENDING

“Brockhausen v. Andrade” Texas State: Dismissed

“Broe v. Reed” Washington State Supreme: Dismissed

“The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et al”; 08-3405-CV-S-AFS Fed MO West Sealed: Dismissed

“Cohen v. Obama” DC District Federal Court: Dismissed

“Connerat v. Browning” Florida state: Dismissed

“Connerat v. Obama” FL Small Claims: Dismissed

“Cook v. Good et al” GA Middle Dismissed; 09-14698C 11th Circuit: Dismissed

“Cook v. Simtech” FL Middle: Dismissed

“Craig v. US”: CIV-09-0343-F OK West Judgment in favor of defendant: 09-6082 10 Circuit USCA Dismissal Affirmed: 08-10817 SCOTUS Writ Denied 29-Sep-2009

“Dawson v. Obama” California Eastern District: Dismissed
“Donofrio v Wells” NJ State: Dismissed: NJ Supreme Court: Denied: SCOTUS: Denied

“Ealey v. Obama” TX Houston Dismissed

“Essek v. Obama” KY Eastern Dismissed

“Gopalan v Obama II et. al” CA Southern: Dismissed

“Greenberg v. Brunner”: Ohio State Court Wood County: Dismissed

“Hamblin v Obama/McCain” Arizona District: Dismissed 09-17014 9th Circuit
Dismissed

“Herbert v. Obama et al” Fed FL Middle: Dismissed; 09-6777 SCOTUS: Dismissed

“Hollister v. Soetoro” Fed DC: Dismissed 09-5161 DC: APPEALED

“Hunter v. Obama” TX Northern: Dismissed

“Judy v. McCain” Federal Court Nevada District: Dismissed

“Kerchner et al v. Obama et al” 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Fed NJ Dismissed
09-4209 3rd Circuit: PENDING

“Keyes v. Bowen” Superior Court of CA: Dismissed

“Keyes v. Lingle:” Dismissed: Reconsideration Denied

“Lightfoot v. Bowen” SCOTUS: Denied

“Marquis v. Reed” WA state: Dismissed

“Martin v Lingle” HI State: Dismissed; 29643 HI State Appeal: Dismissed

“Morrow v. Barak Humane Obama” Fed FL Miami: Dismissed

“Neal v. Brunner” Ohio State: Dismissed

“Neely v. Obama” MI Eastern: Dismissed

“Patriot Heart’s Network v Soetoro” Federal Court DC: Dismissed

“Rhodes v. Gates” TX West: Denied

“Rhodes v. MacDonald” GA Middle: Denied

“Roy v. Obama” Fed HI: Dismissed

“Schneller v. Cortes” PA Supreme Court: Denied; US Supreme Court: Dismissed

“Spuck v. Secretary of State” Ohio state: Dismissed

“Stamper v. US” Federal Court Ohio Northern District: Dismissed

“Strunk v. Patterson et al” NY State: Dismissed

“Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections” NY Eastern: Dismissed

“Strunk v U.S. Department of State” 1:2008cv02234 FOIA Fed District of Columbia Filed, Discovery staid; 09-5322 DC Circuit: APPEALED

“Sullivan v. Marshall” NY State: Dismissed

“Super American Grand Jury” Federal DC District Court: Dismissed

“Taitz v Obama” Federal DC District Court: FILED

“Thomas v. Hosemann” Fed Dist Hawaii: Dismissed

“Terry v. Handel” GA state: Denied

“Welch v. Mukasey et al” NY Northern District: Dismissed

“Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz” CT State: Dismissed: 08A-469 SCOTUS: Denied

[tutstar]

bump

[STE=Q]

Thank you for posting John Charlton’s fine article: 4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen.”

“I say, that in order be be of the country, it is NECESSARY that a person be born of a FATHER who is a CITIZEN, for if he is born there of a STRANGER, it will be ONLY the PLACE of his birth, and NOT HIS COUNTRY” ... Vattel

(Emphases mine)

STE=Q

[Salvation]

Wow! This is going to be interesting to watch!

[tutstar]

Looks like they’ve been following your posts.

[BP2]

[BP2]

Hmmm, let’s see what WONG KIM ARK v US says, referencing MINOR v. HAPPERSETT:

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.

Wow. Sounds a bit like Vattel: