Posted on 09/08/2024 10:19:42 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at calameo.com ...
It’s not a “term of art” but rather a requirement set forth in Article II Section 2 Clause 5 of The Constitution. It is the only place in which it is used and is NOT synonymous with the term “Naturalized Citizen.”
Whether true or not, this isn’t going to work. What the H is wrong with us? Stop posting this BS.
Would you have voted with Mark Levin for Ted Cruz the Cubamerinadian?
gaslight
If you read the article I cited, some states (such as Connecticut) chose to continue to use the term natural born subject, apparently in contravention to your assertion, well into the 1790s.
I looked into the issue expecting to confirm your contention, but I could not find a convincing strict constructionist (that is, the common understanding of the term in effect in 1787) argument in favor of it.
ARTICLE 2
SECTION 1
CLAUSE 5
US CONSTITUTION
however, if one wants to be literal, the commonly cited translation of Vattel dates to 1797 and John Jay did not have a crystal ball.
They would if Trump himself made it an issue. He would have the standing to challenge Harris' eligibility. All he needs is to get a friendly judge in a friendly jurisdiction to find her not eligible and remove her from the ballot. It would get fast-tracked to SCOTUS for certain!
And Harris' constitutional eligibility would likely be confirmed in a 9-0 decision but at least the matter will have finally been settled.
(Thank you for posting Macho MAGA Man.
“The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.”)
Thank you and I totally concur with your post.
(Waste of time people.)
No it’s not! Just because Obama was allowed to usurp the oval office by fraud it’s alright for
Ineligible Kamala to do the same.
Keep hoping that you’ll get someone to notice
It ain’t a gonna happen
FWIW Jefferson lined out subject and inserted citizen in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence.
A deep thinker, and no fan of the British and it’s monarchy, Jefferson would certainly have thought through the notion of a substantive analogy between the two concepts of citizenship and subjecthood and found it utter folly.
We obviously can do it looking back with 30/20 hindsight but multiple heavy hitter founding fathers (such as Jefferson, Franklin and Washington) certainly had the distinctions pretty well in hand as early as the beginning of the Revolutionary War.
Adams was drew a parallel between NBC and NBS in a circulated draft of the Treaty of Paris in the early 1780s, but seemingly only for diplomatic purposes.
“...Harris’ constitutional eligibility would likely be confirmed in a 9-0 decision...”
Just give Alito a chance!
On the jefferson line edit: good, and bully for him (says i).
alas, the FFs stumbled on not providing a solid definition, and we are left with what we have today plus strict constructionist analysis.
strict constructionist analysis (to be uber strict, i would arbitrarily bar stuff after 1783) would seem to go as follows:
natural born citizen -> (England parallel to) natural born subject -> (English common law) native born -> jus solis “plus” (in practice inclusive of reciprocal situations)
the side effect of reciprocity is that any children born of Americans stationed abroad (McCain, any quasi-illegitimate children fathered by certain illustrious US FFs, etc) would be conferred NBC status along with anyone “born of the soil” in the US.
that is just where my own uber strict interpretation would seem to lead me. different assumptions might well lead to differing results.
I would be very interested in a link to that Adams draft of the Treaty of Paris, if it exists online and you happen to have a link (I will also try to find it by myself). (JMHO, it sounds as if it might be somewhat incidentally relevant one way or another.)
Alito and Thomas had multiple chances during the Obama years. Every single NBC case that found its way to the SCOTUS docket was dismissed without comment.
You said, “The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.”
Hmmm. I could just swear I have heard those words before. . .
LIGHTBULBS! Wong Kim Ark!
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”
Then, the Court declares:
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Here, you can read it all for yourself!
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/wong-kim-ark-natural-born-citizen/
OR, you can go the “I don’t need no driver’s license, to drive my car!” route.
General search:
https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=%22natural+born+citizens%22&s=1111211111&sa=&r=1&sr=
The document of interest:
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr=
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 yeasrs a Resident..
In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758),
“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.
Mark Levin’s Ted Cruz-enabling NBC definition:
U.S. NBC=Anyone born anywhere in the universe other than someone born overseas to two non-U.S. citizens.
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.