You need both
parents to be US citizens at your time of birth.
What Our Framers
Knew: The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen” Posted on September 29, 2014 by Publius Huldah
We have been visited
recently with several very silly
articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen within
the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence
is qualified to be President:
Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts
that Congress may define (and presumably redefine,
from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.
Chet Arthur in
American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of “natural born citizen is
determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition
of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.
Human Events claims
that anyone born within The
United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.
Jake Walker at Red
State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present.
After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I,
§2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House,
Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to
“prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that
every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in
which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in
consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same
rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]
But “subjects” are not
“citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to
Citizens of a Republic!
The four writers don’t
know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it.
We first address Word Definitions.
Word Definitions: Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once
meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant
“jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.
Accordingly, if
someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to
an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to
understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the
authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting
and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by
those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or
deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those
our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of
Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus
who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Article II, §1, cl. 5,
U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.
The meaning of this
term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I
found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal
Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.
What does this tell
us? That they all knew what it meant.
We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of
four knows what a pizza is.
Our Framers had no
need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time
of the Federal Convention of 1787, a
formal definition of the term consistent
with the new republican principles1 already existed in
Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.
And we know that our Framers carefully
studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it. How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies,
and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas,
an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three
copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations
to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775
thanking Dumas for the books: “… 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.
So! Vattel’s work was
“continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental
Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican
Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by
1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers
used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3
Vattel on “natural born citizens”,
“inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:
From our beginning, we
were subjects
of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We
needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel
provided these new republican concepts
of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says inLaw of Nations,
Book I, Ch XIX at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are
citizens – it is necessary that
they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place
of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens,
are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are
subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not
participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages
which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of
their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the
quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign
cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding
public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country
naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217:
Children born of citizens in a foreign
country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”.
By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the
place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born
citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism,
merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural
born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens
are “natural born” only if they are born
of Citizens.
How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept
of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:
The Federal Convention
was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the
Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this
letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:
“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration
of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief
of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural
born Citizen…”4
According, Art. II,
§1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:
“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.”
In § 214, Vattel states
that “fundamental law” may withhold from
naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding
public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following
Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from
naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was
“grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5
Remember! None of our
early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born
here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown.
They became naturalized citizens with
the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide
a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone,
their successors were required to be born
as citizens
of the United States – not merely born here
(as were our Founders), but born
as citizens.
And do not forget that
the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being
born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of
their parents) they were born as
slaves. Black people born here
did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th
Amendment.
So! Do you see? If Our
Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status
as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in
our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have
been “natural born citizens”. But they
were born as non-citizen slaves, because
their parents were non-citizen slaves.
David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on
Citizenship:
David Ramsay was a historian, Founding
Father and member of the Continental Congress
[REMEMBER: This is
where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring
the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States
was published in 1789,
just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government
began.
It is an interesting
dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:
“The citizenship of no
man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [ modernized
spelling & emphasis are mine]
Do you see? Ramsay’s
Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by
Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And
we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.
Now, let us look at
the First Congress.
How the First Congress
followed Vattel and our Framers:
Article I, §8, cl. 4
delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization”.6
Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of
1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat at Large, 103:
“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided
within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term
of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to
any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have
resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction
of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or
affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United
States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of
such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and
thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of
twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered
as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the
limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the
United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7
So! This Act of the
First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our
Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:
§ A
“natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
§ Minor children born here of aliens do not
become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not
“natural born” citizens.
Our Framers rejected
the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a
Country naturalizes
the children of a foreigner.
8
The distinction
written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790
is between someone who is born a citizen, by
being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes
a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be
President.
So! Original Intent? Or Whatever the
People with the Power want it to Mean?
I have proved the original intent of “natural
born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it
is one who is born of parents
who are citizens. We
may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the
Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not change the
definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the
United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born
Citizen”.
Some Democrats no
longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the
condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is
“a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right
to nominate whoever they choose to run for President, including someone who is
not qualified for the office.
[See pages 3 & 4
of the linked Court Order.]
The school-girlish
Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic
Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will
ultimately destroy our sovereignity.
Once we accept that
our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major
step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President. PH.
Endnotes:
1 Monarchies have subjects.
Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for
Independence, were transformed into citizens!
The common law of
England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of
“natural born subjects” is set
forth in Book I, Ch 10 of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (I
modernized the spelling):
“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and
natural-born subjects. Natural-born
subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,
that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …”
[emphasis mine]
Under feudalism,
people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they
are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King]
on which they were born.
With our War for
Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and
established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was
subject to us!
Jake Walker doesn’t seem
to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a
Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the
Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.
Chet Arthur and Human
Events tell us the “original intent”
of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment
defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!
And Bret Baier seems
unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article
V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which
redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!
These four amateurs
would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship by Professor
Edward J. Erler.
Erler addresses the
distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of
“citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not
everyone born here is a “citizen”: Only those whose parents are “subject to the
jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the
jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders
whose allegiance is to the Country they left. Foreign diplomats
stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children
born here of these aliens are not citizens!
3 Many thanks to my
friend, David J. Edwards, who
provided me with Evidence of Vattel’s profound influence on our Founders &
Framers.
4 The hyperlink
contains another link where you can see Jay’s handwritten letter!
5 Note that Art. I, §2,
cl. 2, permits naturalized citizens to serve as Representatives; and Art. I,
§3, cl. 3, permits them to serve as Senators.
6 “Naturalization” is
the process, established by law,
by which foreigners become citizens.
7 Note that in §§ 215,
216 & 217, Vattel says that children
born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service
of their country, are “citizens”. He goes on to say that by the law of
nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of
birth produces no change in this particular. But he doesn’t expressly say they
are “natural born citizens”. The italicized words at the end of the 1790 Act
correct that and make it clear that children of citizens of the United States
are “natural born citizens” wherever they are born.
8 The 14th
Amendment doesn’t change this one whit! READ Prof. Erler’s paper, linked above.
NOTICE! To all who strain to find something I “failed to mention”: I didn’t quote Minor v. Happersett because Minor merely paraphrases, in dicta, a portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the text of
which is set forth above.
And I didn’t show why
John McCain & Mitt Romney ARE natural born Citizens; and why Marco Rubio
& Obama are NOT natural born Citizens. J.B. Williams has already done an excellent job in applying the
Republican Principles set forth by Vattel, and which were embraced by our
Founders, Framers, and the First Congress, in his recent paper,
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety
be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The
president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is
not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is
laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under
thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the
difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises
prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married
to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the
country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen
years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even
the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the
government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections,
which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly
bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership
that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy
for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like
Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as
effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the
government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is
sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is
excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A
foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a
king. If there is any reason for
excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most
be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the
trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of
forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature
and business of that department which is called the executive. What the
legislative and judicial departments are everyone can see; but with respect to
what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is
either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Yes, Paine did use the
term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural
born?” We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.
Paine refers to English examples in order to define this. Paine cites
“foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the opposite to “full natural” connection
to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”
It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a
person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person
does not have a “full natural… connection with the country.”
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not
want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full
natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely
recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because
of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine’s description of
the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective
of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two
years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural
born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain
meaning.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent
safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of
America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four
years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a
particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected
under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the
difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises
prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married
to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the
country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen
years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even
the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the
government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections,
which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly
bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership
that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy
for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like
Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as
effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the
government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is
sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is
excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A
foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a
king. If there is any reason for
excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most
be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the
trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of
forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature
and business of that department which is called the executive. What the
legislative and judicial departments are everyone can see; but with respect to
what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is
either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
About the Author:
Publius Huldah, Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict
constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers
(Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional
government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is
no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black
person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also
writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her website. See link below for
other sources:
Comments
Publius Huldah is absolutely correct.
Candidates for President of the US must have had parents who were US
citizens at their time of birth. Obama
does not meet that qualification and from his performance as President, we can
understand why our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent having anyone like Obama
from being President. The Democrat Party should be sued by the voters for
malpractice and have their Party disbanded.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment