Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
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).
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." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
Prior to the Constitution
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
After the Constitution
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattels definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term natural born citizen is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case stated:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
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).
Others are not as well known, but may have written about their experience and may have discussed the term "Natural Born Citizen" and/or Vattel as they were either involved with the Federal Convention, and/or the several state's conventions convened to discuss and ultimately ratify the U.S. Constitution.
They're wives or other family members may also be potential sources if they wrote about their discussions and experiences with these men, related to this issue.
Attendee's of the Federal Convention Also known as the "Constitutional Convention", the "Philadelphia Convention" and the "Grand Convention at Philadelphia" from May 25th to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
|
|
Connecticut William. Samuel Johnson Roger Sherman Oliver Ellsworth (Elsworth)* Georgia Massachusetts New Jersey North Carolina South Carolina Virginia
|
Delaware George Read Gunning Bedford, Jr. John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jacob Broom Maryland New Hampshire New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island |
For brief biographies of each of the Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention, select the names or the states above (clickable links on the source site). (* indicates delegates who did not sign the Constitution) |
|
||||||||||||||||
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates Vol. 1]
|
||||||||||||||||
Note: The number preceding the state is how the entry is found in Elliot's Debates and NOT necessarily the date order in which the state ratified the Federal Constitution. If a county was listed in the source, it's generally underlined. Additional sources were used as some of the state conventions attendee's were not listed in Elliot's Debates. A few additional notes were included if readily available from the source. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Contains the Resolve of the Maryland House of Delegates relative to a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, requiring all senators and representatives to be natural born citizens, and that none but a natural born citizen shall become Vice-President of the United States.Printed in script on the first page of a four-page folder."
Illustrated catalogue of acts and laws of the colony and state of New York and of the other original colonies and states constituting the collection made by Hon. Russell Benedict, justice of the Supreme court of New York
Authors: Russell Benedict, American Art Association 1922 (??)
If you have a FOREIGN father, and you were born with FOREIGN citizenship, wouldn't that constitute "foreign influence?" Of course.
1771 Edition of the Encyclopedia Brit
America and the Law of Nations 1776-1939
Janis, Mark Weston, William F. Starr Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law, and Visiting Fellow in Law, University of Oxford
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-957934-1
From Chapter 2:
2 Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall: The Law of Nations and the New Republic
No group of America's leaders has ever been more mindful of the law of nations than were the Founding Fathers. This chapter tells a little of that story. It begins with American perceptions of the law of nations during the Revolution and Confederation (1776-1789), focusing on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Second, it turns to the importance of the law of nations in the framing of the US Constitution (1787-1789), focusing on James Madison. Third, the chapter explores how the founders relied on international law in early American diplomacy. Finally, it looks to the incorporation of the law of nations in early American judicial practice, particularly the contribution made by John Marshall.Good find bushpilot1.
Vattel's "The Law of Nations" translated from the French by M. Wattel
London 1760
If, what appear to be relatively (historically) unknown, lawyers have this knowledge of and reliance upon the Law of Nations, clearly the framers of the Declaration of Independence (& Constitution) did as well.
"All Europe must allow, that while America was in the greatest good humour with her old mother, a scheme was laid to keep up a large standing army in her capital towns, and to tax her at pleasure for the support of it. They see that, from time to time, the most fraudulent and violent measures have been taken to support their entirely unprecedented claim, till at last, drained of their national troops, they have applied for assistance to other nations. By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens."
AT a meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town of Boston, duly warned and assembled in Faneuil Hall according to law, on Friday the 20th of November, 1772, then and there to receive and act upon the report of a committee appointed at a former meeting, on the 2d of the same month, and such other things as might properly come under the consideration of the town; the Honourable JOHN HANCOCK, Esquire, being unanimously chosen Moderation, the Chairman of said committee acquainted him that he was ready to make report, and read the same as follows;
...
Natural rights of the colonists as MEN.Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life ; secondly, to liberty ; thirdly, to property ; [Edit: Sounds familiar in parts?] together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intollerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, and previous limitation, as from an equitable original compact . Every natural right, not expressly given up, or from the nature of a social compact necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws, should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.
As neither reason requires, nor religion permits, the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God, according to the dictates of his conscience.
" Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty ," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations , and all well grounded municipal laws which must have their foundation in the former.
Continued...
The relavent part from President Zachary Taylor:
So long as the act of Congress of the 20th of April, 1818, which owes its existence to the law of nations and to the policy of Washington himself, shall remain on our statute books, I hold it to be the duty of the Executive faithfully to obey its injunctions.
Regarding the Congressional Act of 1818 that President Taylor was referring to:
An Act to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States, and for other purposes [a PDF]
Prior to the, now famous, quote by Bingham:
every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
We see that Bingham had reiterated Vattel's definition 4 years earlier!
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens . Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
There should be zero question, that the "father" of the 14th Amendment (which concerns citizenship among other things) knew that the framers relied on Vattel's definition for who is a "Natural Born Citizen" and reiterated it multiple times during discussions of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
The Times, Thursday, Oct 03, 1793; pg. 4; Issue 2796; col A (from America)
Well done - thank you.
Never forget, the ‘American Revolution’ was in fact a Civil War of Brits (and others) against Brits (and others). So just why would the creators of the new government permit any Brit (or other) clear access to the pinnacle of our governance?