Research - Vattel & the meaning of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen"

http://www.loc.gov/index.html ^ | 5/12/2010 | many

[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."

[bushpilot1]

The Politics of Aristotle

“a citizen is defined to be one born of citizen parents”

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3YMphP43H_0C&pg=PA71&dq=citizen+parents&hl=en&ei=B_sfTJuWMImyccHt1Z8N&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=citizen%20parents&f=false

[patlin]

The Romans were the 1st to devise the concept of citizen where it applied to a civil society. ALL definitions whether natural or feudal derived their core foundations on Roman law. The term subject was derived when tribes were conquered and the King became the only sovereign. The subjects were stripped of all natural rights but those that the King or Prince allowed them to retain & the right to remove themselves and become members of another society was NOT one of them, hence the birth of perpetual allegiance. The Republics formed of free citizens were threatening to the feudal kings & princes. They were power hungry & greedy to own all lands. Subjects never really own their land, they merely rent it from the central sovereign.

[El Gato]

Thanks, in my drug addled state, I couldn't find the index in the 1773 edition.

I don't think it's significant. Down in the body, both editions only say "Des citoyens & naturels", for the section heading, IIRC (I don't have the '73 edition on this machine)

[Plummz]

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth(i.e., naturalized at birth; e.g. possibly Obama), and that he may be born such.(i.e. natural born; e.g. not Obama)”

Hope this helps.

[jamese777]

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth(i.e., naturalized at birth; e.g. possibly Obama), and that he may be born such.(i.e. natural born; e.g. not Obama)”
Hope this helps.

---

No, that didn’t help at all! There’s no such thing as “naturalized at birth” under US law.
This might help you, its the actual law of the land.
“Nationals and U.S. Citizens At Birth”:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[Plummz]

Congress has the power to pass rules of naturalization. The law you link to is a law concerning those who are naturalized at birth.

Hope this helps.

[jamese777]

Congress has the power to pass rules of naturalization. The law you link to is a law concerning those who are naturalized at birth.

Hope this helps.

---

The law I linked has nothing to do with naturalization. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution establishes two forms of US citizen: born citizens and naturalized citizens. There is no such thing as a born naturalized citizen. Born citizens can become president. Naturalized citizens cannot become president.

Here’s a link to the law of the land for persons who are US Nationals but not citizens at birth:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001408——000-.html

The law of the land on naturalization is in different sections of the US Code from the laws on citizens-at-birth:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001445——000-.html

If Barack Obama was a naturalized citizen, he would have a Certificate of Naturalization that would be a public record.
He does not have a Certificate of Naturalization.

[Plummz]

Congress only has the power to create uniform rules of naturalization. The law you link to is a uniform rule of naturalization. It can be nothing else. Hope this helps.

[jamese777]

Congress only has the power to create uniform rules of naturalization. The law you link to is a uniform rule of naturalization. It can be nothing else. Hope this helps.

---

The 14th Amendment defines the law of the land on citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of the 14th Amendment in its decision in Schneider v Rusk in 1964:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and ther rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all t he rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the excercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.” —Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – 1964

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] 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.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

[Plummz]

Any person which needs to resort to statute to prove his citizenship is naturalized.

[rxsid]

1787 English Language Translation

The Law of Nations: or, principles of the law of nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns.
By M. de Vattel. ... Translated from the French
Printed in Dublin
Publisher:  printed for Luke White, 1787

[rodguy911]

I wonder if anyone has ever sent this stuff to Glen Beck he just might eat it up.

[rxsid]

I only wish that were the case. IMO, Beck (like BOR and others) are so invested in believing in the .jpeg found on the www published by the M.A. in English Lit and the Ph.D. in Political Philosophy, that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the early American historical record.

[rodguy911]

Sad to hear you guys have sourced the founders this is the real deal. Maybe its too tough for radio but surely not for TV.

[patlin]

Justice Story, concurring opinion, “Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)<.i>

Interesting case, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father...

It cannot, I presume, be denied but that allegiance may be dissolved by the mutual consent of the government and its citizens or subjects. The government may release the governed from their allegiance. This is even the British doctrine in the case of Doe v. Acklam, before referred to.

It seems that Justice Thompson affirmed the US law of citizenship through descent, not soil in the DECIDING OPINION. He clearly states that the child FOLLOWED the CONDITION of the FATHER! The words of the LAW OF NATIONS of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, Locke, etc that are spoken of by the framers during the debates when discussin the citizens & the states being in a state of nature.

Justice Story: Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject...Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject. .

[patlin]

Yes sad but true.

PING for more Vattel Supreme Court reference that links Vattel to English common law:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?page=195#195

[DJ MacWoW]

Thanks for the ping.

[bushpilot1]

The Board of Treasury, to whom was referred the petition of Paul Fooks, praying an increase of his salary, brought in a report; Whereupon,

Resolved, That Paul Fooks be allowed a salary of 2400 dollars per annum for acting as interpreter to Congress in the French and Spanish languages.

Any one know him?

[bushpilot1]

Le grand dictionnare historique. Par Moreri. Tomes n. A

Lyons, 1681. Gift of Paul Fooks.

[bushpilot1]

http://www.masshist.org/search/index.php?query=Vattel&search=1