Replies

No where in the language of the 14th do you see the term natural born Citizen. That is because the term was commonly known and understood.

The following was taken from here

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "natural born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "natural born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).

This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato, patlin) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients and law students (including, but not limited to: Leo Donfrio, Mario Apuzzo and the folks at UR).

To belittle or ignore the significance of Vattel's legal treatise, "Law of Nations" is to ignore the clear historical record that his work on natural law was very influential to our Independence and, latter, to our founding.

Last Update: 05/09/2011.

tele2 mobilt bredband

Yes, but so many here are intent on making up their own laws to reflect the way they wish it to be.

Again I quote John Adams.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It is interesting that you cite John Adams while thinking his words support your position. I perceive you need to be very much better acquainted with John Adams. Let's take a little trip into the past, shall we?

First stop, let's take a look at John Adam's personal Law book of English Common law and see what it says in it. Here it is.

Hmm... It mentions that a person's Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of "Natural-born Subject" sounds very much like the Vattel definition of "natural born citizen"! The first thing both definitions mention is "parents." Loyal Parents. If "parents" aren't important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam's son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

It would seem to me that John Adam's understanding of what constitutes a "natural citizen" would hinge upon the legal status of the person's parents, but you might suggest the idea that just because he owned and studied the book to become a lawyer, doesn't mean he agreed that a citizen had to have parents who were loyal to a particular government. Well how about we move a little further forward in History.

Do you know what John Adams was doing during the Revolutionary War? He was at the Hague in the Netherlands, trying to drum up political and financial support for the Newly created United States. Guess where he was staying while he resided in the Netherlands?

He was staying at the home of Charles Frederick Dumas. Do you know who Charles Frederick Dumas was? He was a Representative or Agent of the United States government in Europe. He was instrumental in assisting Adams and others with efforts to enlist foreign support for the cause.

Do you know what else he did? He edited and published this book, and sent three copies to Benjamin Franklin in 1775 who immediately made them available to members of congress working on creating the structure of our new Government and subsequently our new Constitution.

What is the significance of this book? It contains the definition for the term "natural born citizen" with which the founders were familiar. One which was very similar to the definition in the John Adam's own book of English law.

Or in English:

"“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

So do you suppose that during the years John Adams and his son Quincy (Whom Charles Dumas tutored) resided with Dumas' family, that they had time to discuss Vattel, and the significance of it to the American Cause?

That's enough for now.

Some here are blinded by their passion and I understand that passion when it comes to Obama. Hopefully that nightmare will be behind us after Nov. 6 th.

Indeed.