Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 from the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
Pls capture this one and post. Txs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen
Once again:
“June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).”
Yep, you have to be born a citizen of the US. That was the intent. And Obama was born a citizen of the US. Hamilton does NOT add “born of two citizen parents”.
“July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen...”
Yep, no foreigners, but someone born a US citizen.
Vattel, as you well know, does NOT make reference to natural born citizen. Vattel used two words: “Naturels” and “Indigenes”. Neither was translated in English versions written prior to the Constitution. In a translation written AFTER the Constitution, the first is translated “natives”.
For the second:
Indigenous is defined as
“1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
2. innate; inherent; natural (usually fol. by to): feelings indigenous to human beings.”
Its derivation is...
“1640–50; < L indigen(a) native, original inhabitant (indi-, by-form of in- in-2 (cf. indagate) + -gena, deriv. from base of gignere to bring into being; cf. genital, genitor) + -ous”
Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.”
So I think a translation of “the native, or indigenous person” is vastly superior to “the native, or natural born citizen”. The word Vattel used and that the Founders were familiar with is the root of indigenous. The idea that the Founder read the French word for indigenous (literally) and thought “natural born citizen” is laughable.
“”THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)”
Actually, the phrase natural born citizen is not found in the decision. At least, my computer couldn’t find it...
“SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)”
Actually, the phrase NBC is found twice - once in describing the lady, and once in this passage:
“There is indeed one prominent difficulty hanging over this argument which it is impossible to remove. If it proves any thing, it proves too much, since the inference, if resulting at all, must extend to put off one’s allegiance, as well to adopted citizens as to natural born citizens, and to all times and all circumstances.”
Notice it envisions two sources of citizenship - natural born and adopted. It does NOT envision 3 classes, with the special class of “born of two citizen parents”.
“MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)”
Actually, it says:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
To repeat: “Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” - thus supporting TWO types of citizenship, one by birth and one by adoption.
Specifically addressing NBC, it says, “...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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts...”
So it leaves open the debate it acknowledges existed at the time: does a NBC require two citizen parents, or not. It makes NO attempt to resolve that question.
“The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” 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).”
As you well know, the argument making up the first 4-5 pages of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) discusses it at length, and makes it clear they consider WKA a natural born subject.
The dissent included acknowledgment of that, saying, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Yes, that is “dicta”, but it has been followed by subsequent decisions for over 100 years. It forms the basis for the Indiana courts deciding that Obama IS a natural born citizen:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Just a few facts that your repeated posting doesn’t account for...
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=prgyAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&output=text
THE
CLASSICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Edited By
James Brown Scott
Member of the Institute of International Law
President of the American Institute of International Law
Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,
appliqués à la Conduite et aux Affaires des
Nations et des Souverains
By E. De Vattel
Volume I.—A Photographie Reproduction of Books I and II of the
First Edition (1758), with an Introduction by Albert
de Lapradelle.
II.—A Photographie Reproduction of Books III and IV of the
First Edition (1758).
III.—Translation of the Edition of 1758 (by Charles G. Fen-
wick), with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle.
LE DROIT DES GENS
OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE
Appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des
Nations et des Souverains
Par M. De Vattel
With An Introduction By Albert De Lapradelle
Prof essor of International Law in the U niversity of Paris
VOLUME TWO
Reproduction Of Books III And IV Of Edition Of 1758
1758 Vattel Des Citoyens & Naturels page 333
The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States
Pretty much explains natural born and what is not natural born.
published 1858
Vattel cited
http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&sitesec=reviews&id=OVjw5yjk2VoC
It's considered proper to provide a link, so that people can read your quote in context.
As the title indicates this speech was about Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2. which reads:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
It was not about "natural born citizenship, but rather citizenship at the time of the Declaration of independence.
the "in general" in your a quote. Madison is saying "citizenship" is determined by place of birth, not natural born citzenship, which doesn't even enter into the criteria of eligibility to the House of Representatives.
But Hamiliton's language was not adopted, Jay's was, at least as far as the "natural born citizen" requirement.
The term was well known to the founders, it had to be, else there would have been debate about it's incorporation. There was no debate.
If it was well known to the founders, then what was its definition at the time?
Was it Vattel’s? That seems unlikely given the fact, as Mr Rogers pointed out, that no English translation of Vattel’s work extant at the time the Constitution was drafted contained the phrase “natural born citizen.”
Or was it Blackstone’s? Blackstone’s work, as it existed at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, did define the term “natural born subject.” Blackstone was, of course, well-read by and extensively cited by the Founders. John Jay himself was one of the original subscribers.
“The term was well known to the founders, it had to be, else there would have been debate about it’s incorporation. There was no debate.”
Yet it was NOT known from Vattel, since no translation used it at the time, nor is it a very accurate translation of the French.
That leaves common law...
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.