Skip to comments.4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
Posted on 04/25/2011 1:33:23 AM PDT by Veristhorne
click here to read article
Mama Texan’s citations are accurate. The term NBC is originally based on the following the citizenship of the father.
I disagree. After having read much of rxsid’s and bushpilot’s research, it’s clear what the original meaning was, both soil and parentage.
Vattel does not determine US law. Also, Vattel was commenting on common practices of various nations, and noted that England - which the US was part of in 1758 - had different practices.
And Vattel never wrote ‘natural born citizen’, which would have been “sujets naturel” in the French, or ‘natural born subject’ in an English translation. Nor did it appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution - so it is simply false to say Vattel provided a definition of NBC. He never, ever wrote on the subject!
Vattel is sufficient enough authority to have been cited by the United States Supreme Court dozens, if not scores of times.
I could go on and on and keep typing, but will spare you the details, there are about 20 more on my search results list, and I stopped the search before it was done.
I have all of US Reports up to about 2003 on my laptop.
He renounced his citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia simply by not living in the country for a certain number of years.
Indonesia, from what I've read, does not allow dual citizenship so he would have had to formally reclaim his US citizenship on turning 18 IIRC. Apparently there was never a formal request to regain his US citizenship.
So apparently he isn't a citizen of any country.
It doesn’t require any great deal of research. Vattel is very plain:
§ 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Vattel pointed out that Britain naturalized the children of foreigners at birth. Barry may or may not have been naturalized at birth, but if the father of record was British, he is not a natural born citizen.
Nor did it appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution
Have you personally consulted the 1787 New York edition at the Library of Congress or elsewhere? http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703 . If your answer is no, I urge you to cease posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
I’m not lying. It is a fact, and birthers agree it is true.
The original French-language version of Vattels Law of Nations contained this sentence:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. (Des citoyens et naturels)
The first English translation of Law of Nations, published in 1759, rendered the above sentence as:
The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
These words were quoted, verbatim, by the Supreme Court in The Venus case (1814).
In an updated English translation published in 1797, the word indigenes was changed to natural born citizens:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel, §212)
That is a birther web site. He goes on to claim indigenes can be translated NBC, although in reality it is the same as the English indigenous...and the REAL equivalent phrase is sujets naturels.
Have you personally consulted the 1787 New York edition at the Library of Congress or elsewhere? http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703 . Since it seems your answer is no, I urge you to cease posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
Golly...I haven’t traveled to Washington to confirm what everyone agrees to.
Do you have a copy of the 1787 edition that you can photograph (and verify its authenticity), since you are claiming what no one else claims? I thought not...
And the phrase never occurs in the French. Ever.
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
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.
Natural Born Citizen = BOTH parents are U. S. Citizens
AND child must be born in the U.S. mainland.
Where does it say they must be born on the mainland?
There’s no real distinction here. The natives and indigenous are defined as being born in the country to citizen parents. The concept of native-born, as the founders understood it, still revolved around being born to citizens. It makes complete sense then, given the 1781 translation of sujet naturels, that Vattel was revised to say natural born citizens in 1797. Thanks for proving you were wrong.
“It makes complete sense then, given the 1781 translation of sujet naturels, that Vattel was revised to say natural born citizens in 1797.”
It makes sense to revise the translation so it would say something it doesn’t say in the original...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only in Birtherland!
I can’t comment on your home -— birtherland -— never been there. Thanks for conceding the point though. The link you provided showed that the founders translated naturels in 1781 to mean natural-born. It’s only natural (pun intended), that they would read the French version of Vattel and translate it themselves to mean natural-born citizen. And again, the point that you dropped along the way, is that the founders considered native-born to be the SAME ... meaning born in the country to citizens. Under this understanding, Obama is neither natural born or native born ... except of course in his home country of Kenya.
No, they translated “sujets naturel” as natural born. That is because “sujets naturel” was the French equivalent to the English ‘natural born subject’. Pretty easy to figure out, isn’t it?
They did NOT translate “naturel”, by itself, as NBC or NBS. And Vattel did not write “sujets naturel”.
Anyone wanting education about the actual meaning of NBC should click these links and read. Your quote from Vattel explains citizenship not Natural Born citizenship.
Here is rxsid’s profile page, an education in itself:
And a current discussion:
LOL! You do realize that quite a few of the Founders were fluent in French, didn't you?
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 public 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. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
Just because Vattel didn't write his material with the intention of it being used for Constitutional interpretation doesn't mean the Founders didn't write the Constituion with Vattel in mind
In fact, if the Law of Nations is irrelevant to the Constitution, why are they mentioned IN the Constitution?
It is easy to figure out. sujets = subjects and naturels = natural born. So when the founders read "naturels" in Vattel's passage on citizenship, it's PLAIN to see that he was talking about natural born citizenship. Thanks again for proving you are wrong.
Are you blind?? Read it again.
§ 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.
Actually, my eyesight is getting worse, Unfortunately. I didn’t manage to read that part.
I thought you were agreeing with MamaTexan that place of birth didn’t matter, only parentage.
Not ONLY weeks, but YEARS ago.
“In fact, if the Law of Nations is irrelevant to the Constitution, why are they mentioned IN the Constitution? “
The ‘Law of Nations’ in the Constitution doesn’t refer to Vattel’s book. It refers to international law, and punishing acts outside the US boundaries.
“You do realize that quite a few of the Founders were fluent in French, didn’t you?”
You do realize Vattel NEVER used the French equivalent to NBC anywhere?
Technically she's right. If you subscribe to Vattel, he says the place of birth is not important in the very same passage about natural born citizenship.
I say, that, in order to 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 foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
What she quoted from section 215 expounds on this thought.
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 ...
In both passages, Vattel de-emphasizes the place of birth. Children "naturally" follow the condition of their fathers. It "is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen." Then he talks about what "nature has given" the child, which is not changed by the place of birth ... in all three instances, Vattel places emphasis on the father's citizenship.
The fatuous notion that statutory law can “define” a phrase in the Constitution seems to persist despite the fact that there is not a shred of legal authority to support such a notion. The original intended meaning in the Constitution can only be changed by amendment to the Constitution. What matters is what the framers intended, not what Congress subsquently “defines.”
“Sujets naturel” is a phrase, just as “natural born subject” is a legal phrase, not 3 words that just happen to be next to each other. No one should translate “naturel” as “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen” unless the rest of the phrase is there - and in Vattel, it was not.
That is why the first translations had, “The natives, or indigenes...” - and BTW, it was indigenes that was translated NBC in the 1797 mistranslation.
Absolute nonsense. Each of the words can be independently translated, else Vattel wouldn't be using "naturels" by itself. Holy crap. This is an utterly stupid reply on your part. Stupid.
“Then he talks about what “nature has given” the child, which is not changed by the place of birth ... in all three instances, Vattel places emphasis on the father’s citizenship.”
And that is totally contrary to both English common law and American law.
“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.”
Yep. WKA was a native born citizen, which is another way of saying natural born citizen.
“Each of the words can be independently translated, else Vattel wouldn’t be using “naturels” by itself. Holy crap. This is an utterly stupid reply on your part. Stupid.”
Then the translation of “sujets naturel” would OBVIOUSLY be “natural subject”. And Vattel never used “sujets naturel”, and “naturel” was translated “native” in all translations of Vattel.
The 1797 mistranslation turned “indigenes” into “natural born citizen”. While my ancestors came here from Germany in the 1720s, I would not be considered an indigenous person of the US, would I...although I am, undoubtedly, a native citizen, natural born citizen, plain citizen, etc.
There is simply no way to read NBC into Vattel, unless you rely on a bad translation of “indigenes” 10 years AFTER the Constitution!
What we had was an American citizen, giving birth in Hawaii, with a father who was here legally for some years, and who abandoned the mother and baby about the time the baby was born - and you claim the baby received UK citizenship thru the father...not even close.
It was not so much an "age" requirement as a "time of residency" demand.
The law in effect at the time and referred to stated the the mother had to reside for 5 CONSECUTIVE years AFTER the age of 14 years.
Stanley Ann had been traipsing about the globe, and hadn't been resident in the US for any length of time, let alone 5 consecutive years, when Barry showed up.
That doesn't even approach the question regarding the patrilineal nature of citizenship (daddy was a Kenyan on a student visa, therefore NEVER a US citizen of any sort, and therefore unable to confer US citizenship). That by and of itself disqualifies the usurper. He may or may not be a citizen by virtue of his birthplace, but the point is that he CANNOT be considered natural-born because his daddy was a foreign national!
“The law in effect at the time and referred to stated the the mother had to reside for 5 CONSECUTIVE years AFTER the age of 14 years.”
Umm...no. That rule only applied if the child was born overseas. I agree that if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify for squat.
“That doesn’t even approach the question regarding the patrilineal nature of citizenship”...which does NOT exist in US & English law.
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 parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States at the time of his birth. 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a natural born Citizen using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC?
That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
Translate that into English. What do you get?
At this point, from what is publically "known", Barry is an outright admitted multinational. He was born a, or has been a, British subject, a Kenyan citizen, possible U.S. citizen and possible Indonesian citizen.
It's a slap in the face to our framers to think they would have agreed that a multi-national was considered a natural born Citizen. The terms are mutually exclusive.
“In addition to natural born citizenship, what about a natural born citizen who gave up US citizenship?”
Minors do not have legal capacity.
It's why we see Chief Justice Marshall state in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814):
"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."
It's why we see Chief Justice Waite state
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Vattel's original French, From Chapter XIX, 212 regarding Citizens and Naturals (Citizens):
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
Translated to English:
"the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens
The terms were interchangeable then.
It appears that, in the years after the WKA ruling (in 1898), the term "native" has taken on a new meaning when it comes to citizenship.
Of course, WKA was found to be a "citizen" (and not a "natural born Citizen") due to the fact that his parents were perminantly domociled in the country...and conducting business here.
It interesting to note, that Associate Justice Horace Gray (who delivered the majority opinion) was appointed to the bench by non other than the original usurper...Chestur Arthur...who was born in this country...but to a foreign national father and who burned his papers prior to his death, undoubtably to cover his tracks as being born a British subject (inherited from his foreign national father).
The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University
A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006
The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Original from: University of Lausanne
Digitized: Feb 27, 2008
Baldwins Century Edition of Bouviers Law Dictionary. Published by The Banks Law Publishing Company in 1926
Hat tip to BP1 for the great "$2 dollar" find.
nice of you to post a kangaroo court decision that has nothing to do with the price of rice in China...If that’s the best you can do you might as well join Jamese777 over in DU land...
Minors do not have legal capacity.
Actually, they do:
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
Question is...did Barry?
The argument is akin to the claims made by the left during Clinton's impeachment that the president has the authority to pardon himself.
In both cases the left is simply playing to the ignorant.
This issue is coming to a head, and the left is preparing their ignorant base for civil unrest.
Mr Rogers you posted the Luke White edition printed in London.
adj. indigenous, native
n. native, someone who is indigenous, resident of a certain place from the time of birth
link to source
Thanks for the info. Even if Soetoro was born in Hawaii what happened to his status AFTERWARD?
ONLY if he was born within the boundaries of the territorial US.
The law at the time of his birth stated that a woman had to be "five years past the age of 14" to confer US citizenship upon her child, IF that child was born outside the US.
Stanley Ann was just short of her nineteenth birthday when Zero was born.
From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification:
It will be remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker
There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries
Talk about the devil being in the details!
Nice going, BTW!
I’ve heard so many contradictory things on this. If I remember correctly the age limit does not apply to women born American, only naturalized ones. And, I’ve heard (despite lots of comments to the contrary) that the boundaries of the territorial US only counts if both parents were not US citizens. The key is “natural born” vs. “naturalized”. As much as a liberal as she was, Obama’s mama was born as a US citizen and both of her parents were US citizens. She was single when she gave birth to Barry and he is a natural born US citizen no matter who the father was or where she popped him out as far as I can tell. What’s interesting to me in this whole debate is WHY he won’t disclose his long-form Birth Certificate, his college grades & papers, etc. etc. etc. He’s certainly hiding something, but citizenship ain’t it. At least as far as I can tell.
(Four) 4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
. . . . Did y'all see this?
Thanks, Slings and Arrows.
When this first came up two years ago, the text and the link to the actual immigration and naturalization law (which was in effect at the time of Zero's birth) was posted here.
I wish I had it now, but what it said, is that, if a mother is an American citizen, and gives birth to a baby whose father is a foreign citizen, while outside the boundaries of the territorial US, then the mother must be past the age of 14, plus 5 years for her to be able to confer US citizenship on that child.
This is one HUGE reason that it's vital for Obama's LFBC to be released. Stanley Ann Dunham was just short of her 19th birthday when Zero was born. If she gave birth to him outside the territorial US, then he's not even a US citizen, much less, a Natural Born Citizen.
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.