Posted on 05/06/2024 11:40:58 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Divided/dual/tiple citizenship and allegiances at/by birth would not be permitted for the future presidents and Commanders in Chief once the founding generation was gone. Natural born Citizens are 2nd generation U.S. Citizens, born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens (naturalized or born Citizens) when their child was born in the USA. Adjectives mean something. The adjective "natural" in the term "natural born Citizen" denotes a kind of Citizen created by the laws of nature and not man-made laws, acts, amendments, or treaties. See the preeminent legal tomb and treatise on Natural Law at the time by Emer de Vattel which was widely read and used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and to write the founding documents: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ ... and ... https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/
It’s not that it’s nonsense, I just don’t see where that’s in the Constitution. So this means of Donald Trump’s five children only Tiffany Trump is eligible to become President of the United States?
It means that the author of the piece is talking out his keester to fit the growing trend of Democrat politicians of potential either not being born here or one or both parents weren’t/aren’t citizens. The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it. All this other FOREIGN blather about nBC, etc. is just that.
Not sure how you mean that but the author is indeed talking in opposition to that growing trend.
The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it.
Do you agree that if a provision in the Constitution is reasonably susceptible of two or more definitions that the USSC has a role to play in resolving the question?
If so, do you also agree that the court will attempt to determine what the founders intended when they used the term?
If so, do you then agree the court may then find it appropriate to refer to material that was available to the founders when they drafted the Constitution, including any that may have been of foreign origination?
On your last supposition. NO, I do not believe that the USSC need consult or consider outside sources, particularly foreign ones in its determination if a statute, etc. is Constitutional. That’s one of the things I’ve seen from leftist Justices saying they ‘consider other sources.’ The US Constitution is the only document that needs to be consulted here.
With that, would you agree the Constitution is a contract between the states and not a piece of legislation?
You can see where I am going re rules of interpretation.
I have to run, but I look forward to your response.
Sir:
I’m 77 and believe I was taught in school in the mid ‘50’s that to be eligible to be president, both of one’s parents were required to be US citizens.
I believe history books since the Obama era have been scrubbed of that definition. Have you searched older history books that support my recollection?
I believe David Barton of “Wall Builders” (wallbuilders.com) has many old history text books. I’ve asked the question on his facebook page but got no response. Perhaps you would have more success.
Baron, as well: Melania Trump became a citizen of these United States before he was born.
later
"The ONLY document that is relevant is the United States Constitution and/or the USSC’s interpretation of it."
Respectfully Gaffer, noting that the Constitution doesn't say much about international law, Justice John Jay had also clarified that the Laws of Nations (international law) is a founding law like the Constitution is.
Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:
"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or3 Descriptions—"1st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 17932dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
So regardless that media led us to believe that Laws of Nations in Constitution is a mystery (my word) in the context of Obama's questionable qualification to be president, first Chief Justice John Jay left us a paper trail from the Constitution to the Laws of Nations imo.
Yes indeed. The 13 original colonies which then became independent sovereign nation states needed to look to the Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law for guidance in order to find the common ground principles to more perfectly unite them as independent and sovereign states under the new federal Constitution to which they assigned the new federal government limited powers. The Law of Nations is even mentioned in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8. People seem to forget that the 13 colonies upon their declaration of independence from Great Britain were independent and sovereign states.
Each of those original sovereign nation states was a foreign power to each other until they voluntarily joined together for self-defense - originally via the Articles of Confederation and then in 1787 wrote a new contract to unite them and create a more perfect union. And they definitely looked to the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law (in particular Vattel’s legal treatise on that subject at that time - especially the 1775 edition copies sent to Benjamin Franklin by Dumas) for help in writing the new federal contract.
And they provided a way to amendment it if needed in the future. If some part of it, or term’s in it original intent, meaning, and understanding by the founders and framers does not suit the nation as now advocated by the modern political parties - both of them - and their progressive language manipulation tendencies, then they should use the method to change the term, that is a Constitutional Amendment as laid out in Article V.
However all attempts in Congress to do so (see section 5 at this link: https://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html ) could not get any transaction because they knew the national security implications and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term for Presidential Eligibility would ultimately stop such an amendment from getting ratified by the states. They knew that once the amendment was widely, openly, and publicly discussed even if could get passed by Congress with a 2/3 majority, and then brought to the several States for ratification by 3/4th of the states, that it would not succeed. People would say they don’t want to allow dual-Citizens at birth to be allowed to gain command of our military forces, once that became obviously clear to the electorate of the several states.
So they quickly gave up and chose the mode of language manipulation and deception with the help of the enabling press in the 2008 election cycle to fool the vast majority of the electorate. And with the powerful high-tech companies censor and shadow ban people trying to get the truth out about the original intent and meaning of the “natural born Citizen” (”nbC”) term in the presidential eligibility clause. And while the progressives in the Repub Party thought McCain would easily win, instead we got the anti-American “hope and change” Obama who was born a British Subject and a Islamic Marxist, like his father who he wrote about in his book, “Dreams From My Father”.
See this blast from the past as to how this constitutional subversion of the “nbC” term was all planned by the deep state operatives of both major political parties in the years leading up to and including 2008: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2024/01/26/blast-from-the-past-14-years-ago-i-believe-the-fix-was-in-for-the-2008-election-and-the-cover-up-is-still-going-strong-the-perfect-storm-for-a-constitutional-crisis/
That is incorrect. Barron Trump was born on March 20, 2006. Melania Trump became a U.S. citizen on July 28, 2006. So, Tiffany Trump is his only child born to a U.S. citizen mother.
American women couldn't even pass on citizenship until the Cable act of 1922.
Citizenship in America has always revolved around the father, and the mother didn't matter at all. If she married an American, she was automatically a citizen, and one that couldn't vote for most of our existence.
Where you are born shouldn’t have any bearing on this. Most of N/S America is the only place countries aru dumb enough to keep this, whether officially or, like these US, by misinterpretation. There is zero reason nowadays to allow us soli. (Originally from colonizing countries trying to boost their overseas populations, make it easier to join.)
The only way you should be able to be a natural born citizen is by being born to two citizens of the country. I would go further and include that neither parent has any active claim to citizenship elsewhere, and both were also born here, not naturalized.
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.