Was There A Birth Certificate? - Donald Trump Battles Jon Karl Over Obama's, Ted Cruz's Citizenship

Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."

From what I've read, most English translations prior to 1797 rendered the phrase as "the natives, or indigenes." If you know of multiple references to Vattel from before the Constitution was written that render "indigenes" as "natural born citizens," I'd appreciate a cite. As I said before, I think that after the Constitution--a pretty influential document--it's hard to be sure a translator didn't borrow the phrase from the Constitution,

Here is what Vatell wrote:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,

Natural born citizens (English terminology) is used to convey the French concept of the category of citizenry that is born in a country to parents who are of that country.

Naturels refers to citizens who are such by "Natural Law"...... or the natural circumstances surrounding their birth. They themselves had nothing to do with this circumstance.... so it is was classified as "naturel".

The Latin "indigenes" (English indigenous) means from within.... Within what? The country....naturally. This would be similar to speaking of indigenous folks who have claimed an area for generations. Thus....the term "Natural Born" (according to the usage in the 18th century) would mean the same as Les naturels, ou indigenes.

When John Jay first wrote to George Washington during the convention about the potential qualifications for a Commander in Chief (prior to the drafting of the Constitution) he used the exact phrase....Natural Born. At the time congress was in possession of three copies of Vattel's work (according to statements made by Benjamin Franklin) and were using the publication as a guide. Can we assume that if John Jay was using a certain phrase to convey a certain stipulation....that others were probably using it as well? It's unlikely that John Jay came up with this by himself and the manner in which he used it seems like it was part of the normal 18th century lexicon.

Now....folks can say that Natural Born is not an exact translation of Naturel, ou indigenes....but Naturally Indigenous conveys the same concept.....born in the country of indigenous folks.

The Supreme Court has never used the term "Natural Born" in any decision that does not imply...... citizens who were born of citizen parents. It's been the understanding down through the years that this indeed was the definition, and only recently have certain factions attempted to change this meaning.....to something else.

One early case before the court used this definition in its decision....while quoting directly from the "Law of Nations". Judge Justice Livingston wrote the unanimous decision of the The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) and stated this:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:"........

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

And, of course you are correct. The English translation of the "Law of Nations" uses the term "Natural Born" instead of "Naturally Indigenous". But....to 18th and 19th century folks this term found in the Constitution, qualifying the Presidency....and no other Constitutional office.....seemed to fit. It has never really been an issue until recently.

Natural born citizens (English terminology) is used to convey the French concept of the category of citizenry that is born in a country to parents who are of that country.

Yes, by one translator. Not by all. There is no inherent equivalence between "naturels, ou indigènes" and "natural born."

So do you agree that "citizen by birth" = "born a citizen" = "natural born citizen"?

This would be similar to speaking of indigenous folks who have claimed an area for generations. Thus....the term "Natural Born" (according to the usage in the 18th century) would mean the same as Les naturels, ou indigenes.

But, of course, the true indigenous people in the Americas were not considered citizens at all, much less natural born citizens, of the new United States. So again, there is no direct equivalence. It's one person's approximation.

At the time congress was in possession of three copies of Vattel's work (according to statements made by Benjamin Franklin) and were using the publication as a guide.

Copies in English with the "natural born" translation? Not from what I've read. Franklin could almost certainly have understood the French without need for translation.

It's unlikely that John Jay came up with this by himself and the manner in which he used it seems like it was part of the normal 18th century lexicon.

It was. As many have pointed out, the term "natural born citizen" was often used in the colonies interchangeably with the English common law term "natural born subject." It was a familiar term, but not from Vattel.

The Supreme Court has never used the term "Natural Born" in any decision that does not imply...... citizens who were born of citizen parents.

Well, that's just not accurate. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court wrote

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

Why do you seek to twist the plain meaning of the last sentence, which you yourself cite, that the common law of England was "municipal" law as contrasted to the "law of nations" which he held was controlling in matters of citizenship as opposed to that "mere" munciipal law. The law of nations as he pointed out, was different from common law and was even taught as a different subject in law schools of the time. Why strain to twist what he said years later when he was quite clear in Shanks itself?

The woman was natural born under the definition set out by Vattel which he and others of the time were familiar with because she was born in South Carolina as a separate political entity of two parents who were citizens of it as a colony although they were also subjects of the crown at the time. When South Carolina became one of the United States she did not lose that citizenship of the colony status. Like the citizens of every other colony she became by virtue of the colonies uniting as a new nation comprised of the said colonies a natural born citizen of the new entity created. But naturally she was no longer a subject of the crown because of her birth in the colony to two citizens of the colony. She only became a subject of the crown on a further basis when she married a Britich officer during the Britich occupation of Charleston and chose to return to England with him.

It was because of her natural born citizenship status within the colony when her parents acquired the land that she could inherit it under the probate law. This was in accord with the law of nations as well understood at the time which is what Story actually said in Shanks. You strain to reach forward to change what he said by a retrospective distortion. You fail to make the point you claim and so, unfortunately, I cannot concede to it because it is plainly mistaken. Further evidence of your strain is the confusion of "subject" with "citizen." Those who were subjects of the crown in the colonies were as well citizens of the colonies. They became by virtue of independence citizens in the new entity and ceased to be citizens of the crown unless like the plaintiff they chose to become subjects of the crown by some other means not connected with having been born in the colony of two citizens of the colony. That this natural evolution into citizen of the new nation was so was made evident by the grandfathering clause in the NBC requirement in Constitution.

Justice Story plainly states in "Shanks" that matters of citizenship as distinguished from mere municipal matters of common law were determined by the founders under principles of the law of nations. You do not say that he did not say that. Instead you ignore it and go forward in order to seek to overcome what he plainly said by a backward distortion. Why do you twist and turn so to deny the clarity of that origial statement in Shanks?

As to what Marshall said in The Venus" in 1814, he said this in quoting from Vattel:

"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

He makes this quote in support of the following point which he makes two paragraphs earlier:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

The "subject" to which he refers is the subject of how th status of citizenship is determined which he holds by his plain language is determined by the law of nations as can be clearly seen. He does not dissent in holding this. He was in accord with the majority on the point. The point he dissented on was that under the applicable law the gentleman in question he did not believe under the govorning law of nations that the gentleman could have been held to have elected to become a citizen of England as at war with us when the gentlemen did not know that the war had broken out and thus could have not elected to revoke his natural born citizen status. So I once again, with all due respect,find that you have strained to distort matrers rather than presenting them truly in context.

Well, that's just not accurate. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court wrote:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

Actually....the court said this:

That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a "native"-born citizen of the United States.

At no place in the decision is Wong Kim Ark referred to as a Natural Born Citizen.....and is not referenced in Calvin's case 7Rep,6a.

The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal.

The Constitutional understanding of someone born in this country of non-citizen parents is "Native Born".....not Natural born. Always has been since the signing of the document itself. That was the status of Wong Kim Ark.

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.