> And if the definition of Natural Born Citizen, as written by the Founders... <
Where is that definition written? It’s not in the Constitution.
I’m not trying to be snarky here. Folks are always talking about who is and who isn’t natural born. But no one seems to have a link to anything fundamental. So any clarity here would be appreciated.
Here you go.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/09/20/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-u-s-constitution/
My son was born in England of American Parents. He is a dual national of both the USA and the UK and holding passports of each nation. He can hold any office in our nation with the exception of President or Vice President. Oddly he could be Prime Minster of England but I doubt they would be so foolish.
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.
The following is from The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law (neither did Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists that coined "wall of separation between church and state"), it is a window into contemporary understanding of "natural born citizen." It was written by a man widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person..
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection with the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Now compare Paine's understanding of a "full natural" citizen with the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble says that he Constitution was "ordained and established... to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity."
"Ourselves" means "We the People," the citizens of the United States who established the Constitution and delegated our powers to the states and the federal government.
"Our Posterity" means the children born to We the People, the citizen descendants of citizen parents.
Resident aliens are not "We the People," as they are not citizens and cannot vote for representation in the House of Representatives. Since resident aliens are expected to be here for a long time, it is reasonable to assume that they will have children. Their children may be born here, but they are not citizens descended via parentage, as their parents are still citizens of their home countries. Therefore, children of resident aliens are not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
If resident aliens choose to become citizens (become "We the People"), then their subsequent children will be the posterity of We the People, and will also be citizen descendants of citizen parents.
This is what Paine was speaking of when he wrote of "foreigners" and "half a foreigner." Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
This is why I also have postulated that "natural born citizen" wasn't meant to describe a kind of citizenship (Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to define the rules of Naturalization), it was included as another qualification to be President.
Article II says that one has to be at least 35 years old and resided in the country for 10 years, too, to be President, but we don't say that "citizen over 35" is a class of citizenship just because it's in the same clause describing the President.
So how did "natural born" become a class of citizenship instead of just another narrowing requirement in Article II to be President? What's wrong with removing the phrase and claiming that to be President, one has to be descended from citizen parents, be over 35, and resided in the country for 10 years, without the "natural born" phrase being automatically assumed to mean class of citizenship? The intent of the clause remains unchanged. Note that the simpler term "citizen" is what is used as a qualification for Congress, but with lower age requirements. Why separate "natural born citizen" and ordinary "citizen" if both were to mean the same thing? Why hold the President to a higher standard than Congress if the words were synonymous?
I say that the reason "natural born" was placed into the Constitution in that specific location in Article II is that it was a "term of art," and everyone had a common understanding that it was meant as a qualification to be met in order to become President, along with age and residency. It is what separates the Executive from the Legislative. It is what gives power to the Preamble "to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity" by ensuring that the highest office in the land was held by citizen children of citizen parents.
Thomas Paine knew this when he wrote that chapter on Constitutions in 1791.
-PJ