[BP2]

I don’t think you ever responded to my earlier question of a specific reference for the change in the definition of ‘natural born’ from that found in the dictionary: ‘having an attribute or quality from birth’. Do you have one?

Yep ...

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has Underlined the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines born" in nearly all instances.

And now, my standard disclaimer to all of the new TROLLs around here: Welcome to FR. Now read, and learn. You have much to learn. Facts are about to become part of your world. That will be uncomfortable at first. Maybe even painful, depending on how tightly you cling to your delusions.

[STARWISE]

Great job .. have you forwarded this research
to the attorneys on the citizenship cases?
I bet they would appreciate it ... 9 days
and counting.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks so much for the ping to the images especially!

[Tublecane]

The writings of Emer de Vattel are not U.S. law. Several SCOTUS decisions, including Wong Ark and Elg, have upheld the doctrine of “the right of the soil” over “the right of the father” argued by Vattel.

I cannot with confidence of clarity read the Jay letter in this format. I’m pretty sure he says something about the assumption of foreigners to the administration of our national government, then he says, “...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.” Nothing in this letter expands on what we already know from the Constitution itself, near as I can tell.

Please, tell me why you think his use of the word “born” is significant.

[Windflier]

Thank you for digging up this historical reference which further clarifies the term, Natural Born Citizen.

The "Law of Nations" reference is of particular interest, because that exact treatise is mentioned in our own Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

Another Freeper brought this clause and The Law of Nations to my attention recently, and your post jogged my memory of it. I believe that she also had mentioned it in reference to the NBC issue.

If I'm reading the Constitution correctly, it says that Congress has the power to punish offenses committed against The Law of Nations, of which the statement regarding the Natural Born Citizen is a part.

I don't know that the Supreme Court will interpret it that way, but I would suspect that they would at least consult The Law of Nations as a reference in clarifying this.

[LucyT]

Thanks, BP2. Excellent post.

Who-knew-there-would-be-anything-to-Ping-over-the-weekend-Ping.

Thanks to SunkenCiv for the HTML.

Click on it:

Google

[OL Hickory]

john jay to washington...is this in the federalist papers
also........

[WVKayaker]

bump!

[SnarlinCubBear]

<><

[calenel]

"the natives, or natural-born citizens"

Here, again, we see the terms are interchangeable.

"parents"

if we take the plural here to mean exclusively both parents then you might have a point, but we also express 'the male parent of this child and the female parent of that child and the male parent of the female parent of that other child' as 'parents' - the plural of parent when they do not share offspring. I wish I could have avoided the very awkward constructs above, as did Vattel.

Citizen at birth by ancestry is not in dispute. Citizen at birth by location of birth is another facet of English common law. The 14th Amendment does use 'OR'. US Law and the COTUS are more relevant than either Natural Law or English Common Law - George Mason, [a] father of the Bill of Rights, said: "English Law is not our Law". All these 'Natural Law' and 'English Common Law' arguments are tenuous at best. I have yet to see the expression 'father and mother are citizens' or the like in any of these supposed proofs of the 'two citizen parents' argument. Furthermore, how does any of this supersede the COTUS, including the 14th Amendment? On top of all that, as I mentioned earlier, women acquired the citizenship of their husband at marriage, if different from his prior (all you English Common Lawyers go look that one up). Citizenship of the mother simply was not a factor. And, further, the John Jay letter has no bearing. We already know that 'natural born' means 'having that attribute from birth' and that was important. I do not accept your 'proof' to, well, prove anything.

P.S. Don't use yellow, at least not this shade, it is difficult to read. Not enough contrast.