Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Scanian
The Framers relied on “The Law of Nations” in selecting the term “natural born.

1. How do you know this? Simply stating it doesn't make it so.

2. If it was so obvious, why did congress feel the need to define in in 1790?

1,331 posted on 01/05/2009 8:15:55 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1302 | View Replies ]


To: Ron Jeremy

I should know better than to answer things on the basis of memory but, as I recall, the 1790 law was an effort to distinguish between the English, common law understanding and what natural born should mean in a republic, as distinguished from a monarchy. The debate in Congress leading up to the 14th Amendment clearly showed that the prevailing understanding among the reps. was that a non-citizen father precluded the child from being a natural-born U.S. citizen.

“Law of Nations” was the accepted authority on such matters in 1787. The founders made use of it, as they did Blackstone.


1,332 posted on 01/05/2009 8:32:11 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]

To: Ron Jeremy

I was also alerted today about a Freeper whose parents were non-citizens and was told by the INS that she could never be president!


1,334 posted on 01/05/2009 8:34:07 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]

To: Ron Jeremy

Here is a source for you which talks about the founders and the Vattel book: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html

The fifth paragraph is a concise summary of Vattel’s influence on the 1787 convention.


1,335 posted on 01/05/2009 8:46:50 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]

To: Ron Jeremy

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212


1,336 posted on 01/05/2009 8:56:29 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]

To: Ron Jeremy; Scanian

It was further defined (significantly) in 1795. I’ll have to search out the historical moment, but from memory it’s something like- off shore births were given citizen status, as opposed to the natural born citizen status. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Here it is...

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

Here’s the source link:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html


1,337 posted on 01/05/2009 9:23:11 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson