Replies

This is another very well written essay by Mario. I have only included the part of it which is the core of this very issue.

As I have always said, this entire argument comes down to allegiance. Mario, in bringing forward yet more historical evidence & words of the founders clearly shows that allegiance is derived from natural law pertaining to the sovereign. Well, there we have it. The English feudal common law was written after the Norman Conquest, the feudal law implemented took the sovereignty away from the individual and placed it soley in the king, prince or monarch. The framers rightfully gave the sovereignty back to the individual person. Therefore, allegiance can not be passed onto children if it is not 1st possessed to by the parent. In naturtal law, an alien possesses no allegiance to a foreign sovereign and thus can not pass an allegiance to a foreign sovereign on to their descedents. Allegiance comes either through birth or naturalization and unless & until an alien is naturalized, their children remain aliens per the laws of nature and laws of nations & most of all the US Constitution.

Jefferson’s views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questions of citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:

“To Doctor John Manners.

Monticello, June 12, 1817.

SIR

Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.

My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . “ http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html. We can see how Jefferson was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he stated that no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from natural law rather than the English common law. As he applied natural law to the question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a “natural born Citizen.” These historical writing show that Jefferson surely would not have considered a “natural born Citizen” to have the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject.”

FAM EXHIBIT 1292

A SAMPLE LETTER TO ACCOMPANY CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) FOR MINOR RENUNCIANTS
(CT:CON-285; 03-06-2009)

Post Letterhead

Date

Dear (NAME):

Every U.S. citizen has the right to renounce voluntarily and
intentionally his or her citizenship, as you have done. Because this is a very
serious decision with consequences that may not have been apparent to you
at the time, the law gives persons like yourself who renounced under the
age of 18 an opportunity to reevaluate your decision when you reach the
age of 18.

Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. Code
1483) allows you to reclaim your U.S. citizenship within 6 months after your
18th birthday. You are advised to make a note of the deadline to reclaim
automatically your U.S. citizenship: the deadline is [insert date six months
from 18th birthday.] You may do so by going to any U.S. embassy or
consulate or passport acceptance facility, execute a passport application and
take an oath of allegiance to the United States. Under this law, if you make
such a claim, you will be considered as never having renounced your U.S.
citizenship.

Just like the decision to renounce your citizenship, the decision to
reclaim it is yours alone. No one, including the U.S. Government, any other
government, or even your own family can make the decision for you. Please
keep this in mind as you consider whether you may want to make a claim of
citizenship once you become 18.

The U.S. Government and the Department of State do not wish to
influence your decision. We just want to make sure that you know that you
have the right to reconsider and “take back” this decision upon reaching the
age of 18. Because this is a very important right that you retain, we ask
that you keep this letter with your Certificate of Loss of Nationality should
you wish to take advantage of this right when you reach the age of 18. The
Department of State will also keep a complete record of your renunciation as
well as this letter. Please remember that the period to automatically reclaim
citizenship expires on [date].

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact (NAME) at
(phone number). You may also contact the U.S. Department of State, Office
of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management at any time. That
office can be reached at 202-647-5225.

Sincerely,

SIGNATURE OF CONSULAR OFFICER

TYPED NAME OF CONSULAR OFFICER

TITLE OF CONSULAR OFFICER

On the question of what the Framers meant when they inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II, putative President Obama supporters argue that the Framers simply used the “natural born Citizen” clause in place of the English common law “natural born subject” clause. Hence, they argue that the clauses mean the same exact thing.

I disagree with the way the author presents this argument, and I strongly object to the notion that only an Obama supporter would challenge his position.

Much of American law was derived from English common law. But it does not follow that anything said to be derived from common law should be seen as "the exact same thing," because that ignores the fact that common law was modified in the colonies and in the writing of the Constitution.

The most basic principle of citizenship under common law is that someone born within the nation's borders is, at birth, a citizen. The Constitution doesn't limit natural born citizenship by defining it, so the best definition we have is that a natural born citizen is one who is not naturalized, but a citizen by birth.

You'll have a very hard time convincing any court otherwise.

From Mario's article:

"The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic."

Naturalized citizens in the U.S. are NOT for all intents and purposes "Natural Born Citizens" but are, of course "citizens." Clearly, there is a difference and the framers were obviously aware of that.