Vattel

Various

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Waite, in effect, did so.

What did Chief Justice Waite say, exactly?

"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."

So first, he resorted to "common law." He did not write, in more polite and more erudite language, something to the effect of "Anyone with half of a brain in 1788 knew that NBC meant you had to have citizen parents." That is a key reason for my continually citing Minor. I cannot stress enough that his approach to defining NBC was not yours.

Chief Justice Waite clearly said that NBCs had citizenship via BOTH jus soli ("born in a country") AND jus sanguinis ("of parents who were ITS citizens"). He acknowledged that "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" but refrained from "solv[ing] these doubts."

I argue, and you disagree, that Justice Gray "solved these doubts" in Wong Kim Ark. You consider Justice Gray's authoritative but nonbinding dicta suspect because you believe that he was illegitimately appointed and felt compelled to protect a President who had been dead for twelve years. That five other Justices, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur, joined Justice Gray's opinion with its extremely detailed Sections II & III (i.e. pages upon pages upon pages of dicta) is evidence to me that they agreed with it. Unsurprisingly, you disagree.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I managed to track down copies of your sources:

• August 13, 1880
• August 15, 1880

Neither source shows that President Arthur lied. They show him stating that his father "came to this country when he was 18 years of age, and resided her several years before he was married," but neither proves that he lied. In fact, both sources seem to be overall dismissive of any notion that President Arthur wasn't eligible.

[WhiskeyX]

Those are false statemeents and conclusions.

[bushpilot1]

Why the name of the USS Cole bomber? Are you a Muslim? Are you here to distort our laws..what is your agenda?

Natural born citizens are born from citizen parents.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Oh? Which ones?

[WhiskeyX]

Chester A. Arthur was quoted as saying:

“I have shaken hands with a hundred people in this city who know I was born in Vermont, at the time my father was 40 years old. My father was a native of the north of Ireland. He was what they call Scotch Irish. He came to this country at the age of 18, intending to join a maternal uncle in Cincinnati. He settled in Vermont and became a Baptist clergyman.
[....]
“You can rest perfectly assured that I was born in this country, in Fairfield, Vermont, and that I am eligible.”

The family Bible recorded the birth of Chester A. Arthur for the date of 5 October 1829. The U.S. Census records confirm the date of birth as the year of 1829. The newspaper articles describe the year of birth as on or about 1830.

The newspapers reported the death and obituary of Reverend William Arthur, D.D., the father of Chester A. Arthur as 29 October 1875.

Chester A. Arthur's Eligibility—Another Letter from Mr. A.P. Hinman—A Question of Dates
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:
If you will examine either the Albany Daily Argus or the Albany Evening Journal of Friday, October 29, 1875, you will find a notice of the death of Rev. William Arthur, D.D., aged 79 years, who was supposed to be the father of Chester A. Arthur, and I believe now that he was. [....]
Brooklyn Eagle; Date: Aug 19, 1880; Page: 4.

Subtracting the reported age of 79 years from the date of death in 1875 gives a year of birth on or about 1796.

Subtracting the 40 years of age Chester A. Arthur claimed was his father's age when he was born in the year of 1829 gives Chester A. Arthur's claim a year of birth for his father on or about 1789.

Adding the 18 years of age Chester A. Arthur claimed was his father's age when William Arthur immigrated to the United States to the year of 1789 he also claimed was his father's year of birth gives the year 1807 as the year of immigration.

Adding the 18 years of age Chester A. Arthur claimed was his father's age when William Arthur immigrated to the United States to the year of 1796 he also claimed was his father's year of birth upon death gives the year 1814 as the year of immigration.

These years are mutually exclusive, so Chester A. Arthur obviously made false claims about some of the dates. They cannot all be true dates.

Finally, the record of which documents the naturalization of William Arthur as a U.S. citizen is dated 31 August 1843. Chester A. Arthur is well documented as already being 13 years of age when his father, William Arthur, gave the oath and signed the papers to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Consequently, Chester Arthur was born with his father's nationality as a British Subject in 1829, because the British Government did not recognize any right of a British Subject to expatriate in 1829.

Since Chester A. Arthur was an experienced legal expert when he made his statement in 1880, he was obligated to know that his birth as a British Subject made him ineligible to serve in the Office of the President as a natural born U.S. citizen, just as a natural born U.S. citizen was ineligible to serve in the British political offices. Consequently, his statement/s to the newspapers included lies to deceive readers into relying upon his fraudulent representations of being eligible to serve.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Consequently, Chester Arthur was born with his father's nationality as a British Subject in 1829, because the British Government did not recognize any right of a British Subject to expatriate in 1829.

So this is the crux of the matter for you. So what, I ask? Chester Arthur isn't a NBC under YOUR definition, which happens to be close to an English translation of de Vattel's, but it's not all clear that YOUR definition is what NBC means in the Constitution. By contrast, numerous Supreme Court cases show that "resort" was found in "common law."

You said that there are "more authoritative" Supreme Court cases in favor of "ineligibility." Which ones?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Side note: I believe I overreacted earlier and apologise regarding “French only”.

“You presume that “natural-born citizens” must have citizen fathers. Does the Constitution say that?”

I and many others that our Founding Fathers had Vattel in mind as the definitive source of “natural born”. I can bring history research here if you need it. As for Vattel 101:

“In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.”

There’s a lot more, exhaustive, found here:

http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

WhiskeyX, you bring up a good point about the political side of qualification. It is our duty as citizens and as states to prevent this mess in the future. If there’s a reasonable chance of dispute, then a candidate is tainted. And what kind of political party chooses a tainted commander-in-chief who risks a rift in military discipline? If Obama had even less common sense as commander-in-chief, imagine what might have happened in the military. True leaders do not allow such doubts to fester. And true statesmen would not be in lock step with such “leaders”.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Judges aside for a moment. We have state legislatures that need to decide who is and is not Constitutionally qualified. We also have voters who need to ask themselves the same question. [There is undue pressure to accomodate Obama right now, obviously, but getting past that.]

I am glad that slave status was ended and that full citizenship is granted, thanks to the 14th Amendment, but do you believe that the 14th Amendment changed things to the point that when a foreign man knocks up an underage female, her child is qualified to be our president?

Maybe I sound harsh, but I think such a qualification would be unwise regardless of the constitution. Imagine if the father had been more of an influence on him! Then again, perhaps this is worse — the mother clearly lacked common sense herself. The father abandoned her, and she was the one to raise our future president?

Yeah, it’s cool in a way to think such a thing is Constitutional. But dangerous too.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Lastly, and here’s the kicker, supreme Court justices are sometimes wrong. Any ruling may be overturned. “This judge said this .. this judge said that ...” At some point, it’s a waste of time.

All that matters is the logic of the words and the meaning of the words.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

And orginalism is the best way to understand both logic and meaning.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The Scalia quote is food for thought. Thank you.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Right. Vattel’s “natural born” interpretation has been debated throroughly on this forum for several months. It’s here to stay.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

‘Natural-born citizen’ info vanishes off Wikipedia In wake of Obama’s release of his long-form
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713937/posts

[djf]

Ok.

Here’s the deal.

First, in the interest of full disclosure I was taught that NBC means born on the soil of citizen parents.

But that was back in the late 60’s, early 70’s.

While I cannot believe now that any of my high school teachers were omniscient or even had doctorates in history, it seems to me that it would have been maybe a bit unorthodox for them to teach something that was against the established view at that time.

As far as the arguments raised.

One can look at the whole set of things raised and say “Well, it’s the Obama supporters versus those anti Obama”. I admit to being anti-Obama, but because of his policies, not because of where the hell he was born.

In fact, if it came to ejecting him because of some determination that he was Constitutionally ineligible, that might be a cataclysm, whole cities might burn to the ground.

In my view it might be even worse if we ignore the Constitutional mandates and pretend like everything is fine.

But it’s not. And here’s why.

We hear over and over this rhetoric that almost amounts to pleas for us to accept that some Supreme Court case at some time is the controlling factor. And it relies on the Supreme Court saying something about the common law.

My first question would be “How can Supreme Court decisions that happened well after the Constitution was written be deemed a controlling factor in what they actually meant when it was written?”

Answer:
They can’t. The founders were not depending on something that happened many years later.

Not to mention the fact that NONE of the decisions were actually faced with the question at hand, which is “What constitutes a natural born citizen?”

We KNOW the founders had access to Vattel.
We KNOW there was a Convention that argued the new Constitution.

What happened?
At one point, an early draft of the Constitution was put together, with alot of Hamilton’s input. In it he said that the president (I believe at that time Hamilton was arguing for a Governor, not a president, even though it would have been a name difference only) should be a “born citizen”.

Washington was president of the convention. He soon got a letter from John Jay suggesting that qualifications for the head of the new republic should be more stringent, being a NATURAL born citizen.

NATURAL being and adjective, being a descriptor, which fits in perfectly with what Vattel said. Because what Vattel said was a perfect union of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguines (sp?).

So the history of the convention shows us how the idea evolved, from being just a “born citizen”, to being a “natural born citizen”, with NO RELIANCE WHATSOEVER on any idea of “natural born subject” in the British realm.

Geirge Mason, delegate from Virginia, even stated at one point during the convention that “The common law of England is not the common law of these States”. He was a judge in his county, so he probably knew what he was talking about.

How many times have we heard about the founders believing in NATURAL LAW?

Le droit des gens, ou les principe de loi naturelle
The rights of men, or the principles of natural law.

BTW, there is no doubt there is scrubbing going on in the net, I’ve had to make numerous alternate searches for some items because the originals have been deleted. Isn’t that like what nazis do?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

No worries.

I and many others that our Founding Fathers had Vattel in mind as the definitive source of “natural born”.

Your argument that a specific English translation of de Vattel defines NBC in the Constitution isn't new; it dates back to 1844, if not even earlier.

I find Vice Chancellor Sandford's argument in Lynch to be persuasive:

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.

...

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.

In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212...

But de Vattel DID NOT define "natural-born citizen"! Those aren't his words! They are ONE WAY to translate that sentence. Chief Justice Marshall himself did not use that translation in The Venus (1814), even though it was available. Moreover, as djf pointed out in the opening post, Fenwick simply translated it as "The natives..." in 1916.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

but do you believe that the 14th Amendment changed things to the point that when a foreign man knocks up an underage female, her child is qualified to be our president?

14th Amendment isn't relevant here. To again quote Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch,

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Lynch precedes the 14th Amendment, and Vice Chancellor Sandford's example went even further than yours. He said it didn't matter if BOTH parents were "alien[s]"! In your case (i.e. BHO II's), his mother was a "natural-born citizen."

[Abd al-Rahiim]

All that matters is the logic of the words and the meaning of the words.

Glad you agree. The reasoning of the Supreme Court and lower courts is clear: to define "natural-born citizen," you must resort to "common law." You cannot find resort in an English translation of de Vattel that just so happened to have translated his French to "natural-born citizen," particularly since it is not beyond dispute that "natural-born citizen" is the ONLY way to translate that phrase.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

[I’ll respond to this one sentence alone in this post, and then move on.]

“In my view it might be even worse if we ignore the Constitutional mandates and pretend like everything is fine.”

It’s been that way ever since Teddy Roosevelt refused to amend the Constitution for national parks. He prefered to form national parks through unconstitutional legislation. I am all for a reasonable amendment to create national parks, but the argument has been, “Either you oppose national parks or you support them.”

Taft refused to go along with Teddy’s unconstitutional scheme, which led to the Bull Moose Party, the first official RINOs.

Then came FDR who threatened to pack the courts. And now we are in a nation that hasn’t accepted the Constitution as an actual contract for decades.