It should not be surprising that within Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added) Notice the plural use for parentage.
This was based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance. The position being that if a person whose father was born outside the country and the son inside the country it would put the son in a position of dual allegiance between his birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “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.”
The implication is that if circumstances placed the country at odds with the country of a president’s father the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against a nation that he has a direct relationship with. How could a man expect to defend against or wage war with the country of his father?
Which brings us to the issue at hand – how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” As the Constitution is the basis of our law and is law in and of itself we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest contention in determining the meaning as the term is not used in general language today, outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, so it is of little use.
Second; should the “plain meaning” not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." (Emphasis added)
From the Federalist Papers:
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context:“THIS WILL NOT, OF COURSE, INCLUDE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS ACCREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT WILL INCLUDE EVERY OTHER CLASS OF PERSONS.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.
Wow. You sure know how to set your font big. But that doen’t make your point more accurate meaningful.
Is Marco Rubio a foreigner? A citizen of Cuba?
Oh, I know... you wonder what sort of person could be a foreigner born in the United States if being born in the United States makes you a natural-born citizen, don’t you? That would be one who was born in the United States of foreign parents who were not immigrants, but were under the law of the nation from which they came. Not illegal immigrants, but non-immigrants. For instance, John McCain is not a Panamanian.