Posted on 04/27/2011 8:26:51 AM PDT by patriotgal1787
Vatel's "Law of Nations", which the founders were known to have relied on and consulted, defined natural born as born in the country of citizen parents. (Plural)
And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and 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. "
So you have "citizens" which include "naturalized citizens" that are foreigners that have come here. You have "Native citizens" that were born here, regardless of parents. And you have "Natural Born citizens" that were born here of two citizen parents.
Defining “citizen at birth” doesn’t help to define “natural born citizen”.
The only gap to be found is in our knowledge, not in the Constitution. The term had a definition in 1787, and the framers understood it. (Otherwise we’ve got them writing nonsense.)
We’d be better off hunting down their definition than trying to shoehorn ours into the document they wrote and ratified.
To make it more confusing, though, the first or second congress, temporarily defined “Natural Born” much wider, but they repealed the “Natural Born” language the next session. And it’s believed that they repealed it because they recognized they didn’t have the authority to redefine “the Natural Born criteria”, though they could define citizenship.
Congress doesn’t have the authority to redefine most Constitutional terms by statute. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.
It makes zero difference what "Law of Nations" says if that language was never incorporated into either the Constitution or the U.S. Code.
And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:
Again...
Meaningless quote? From a court in 1844, cited by the US Supreme Court 50 years later?
If you READ the decision, you would know WHY it was made. The judge cites many examples and explains in detail.
“citizen at birth” is equivalent to natural born.
You can probably “hunt down their definition” by actually doing some research on this subject - as I did! :)
Stormer, your question wasn’t addressed to me, but the answer is that even if he “finds what he is looking for”, he will then find something else to look for.
Egos and great dislike and mistrust are involved here, and when these are combined, people will never, ever give up their position.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Note the emphasis.
Those commas mean something.
I'll say it again...
Article 1, Clause 4. The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Congress can't legislate natural born citizenship.
You look like you don't have even the simplest understanding of the Constitution when you post statements like yours.
I’ve never seen anything quite like “Birtherism”. Of course this latest turn of events will only require yet another moving of the goalposts and generate more breathless idiocy.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person except a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person except a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
Sure it is worth something but letter’s don’t have much legal weight except, of course, when the ACLU cites Jefferson’s letter about separation of church and state!
I'm not convinced either. He's a 100% fraud.
It's obvious that "Natural Born Citizen" is different from "Citizen" or the clause in the constitution becomes redundant. Whether or not Vatel's makes no difference depends on whether there can be made an argument that "Natural Born" meant something other than Vatel's definition to the founders.
Of course the question is moot if the Supreme Court remains too chicken to take the matter up. At least until a state passes an eligibility law that defines the meaning of "natural Born", or until a state passes an eligibility law that leaves it undefined and a Secretary of State enforces Vatel's definition and is challenged.
The letter lead directly to the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution so I'm not sure why you are comparing an opinion of Jefferson to a request from a future Supreme Court Justice to the Father of our Country. It carries much more weight then your claims of the absence of questions about Arthur's parents' nationality status.
You are totally incorrect when you say that natural born is the same thing as citizen at birth.
Natural born does not depend on congressional law at all.
Your research is lacking. The citizenship of the parents is a key issue. This might help:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Also the supreme court cases habitually cite “The Law of Nations” Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, which in translation says:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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. . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.