Replies

Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court was well regarded James Kent. He was a leading conservative. Here is what a poster, Mike Appleton, on Turley’s website had to say quoting Kent:

“I continue to be bothered by your insistence that we are somehow bound by the views of one writer on the issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” You will recall that I earlier cited Blackstone, but you rejected his definition on the basis that there is a distinction between a “citizen” and a “subject,” and asserted that the Founders would have used the word “subject” rather than “citizen” in the Constitution had they agreed with Blackstone.

I believe it is important to remember that the Founders were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. Although the terms “subject” and “citizen” share a common characteristic, a duty of loyalty or allegiance, the word “citizen” is more appropriate to our form of government and has its origins in the Roman republic. Indeed, you will recall from your student days that at one time the most important boast one could make was “Civis romanus sum” (”I am a Roman citizen”).

In any event, I went home last night and pulled out my volumes of Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law,” first published in 1827. I note that Mr. Kent acknowledges the contributions of Vattel on the law of nations, as well as those of Grotius, Burlamaqui, Montesquieu and others, but makes no reference to Vattel in his discussion of natural born and naturalized citizens, relying instead upon principles of English common law. (Although not relevant here, I would argue that the Founders were much more deeply indebted to people like Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes and Hume than they were to Vattel.)

Kent writes that “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, p. 33). “It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested (sic) by any act of their own.” (Id., pp. 35-36). By contrast, “An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,” (with certain exceptions). (Id., p. 43). Thus aliens can become citizens only through an applicable naturalization procedure. “A person thus duly naturalized, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, except that a residence of seven years is requisite to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and no person, except a natural born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor of this state, or president of the United States.” (Id., p. 57).

Kent is referring to the state of New York, where these lectures were given, and to the naturalization acts then in effect. The point, however, is that he uses the phrases “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.

On the subject of the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president, Kent observes, “The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, this restriction will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” (Lecture XIII, Vol. I, p. 255).

I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary. If one is born in the United States, one may be properly described as “native born,” a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, since the president was born in the United States, he was and is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds. “

Would Obamanazi, born in Kenya, be considered a Naturalized Citizen? Would he be a natural born citizen? Does it depend on whether Mother was married to father.

Surely there is a case out there somewhere involving a UK citizen , tribal marriage in one of their colonies, bigamy, a person born out of this country or in this country to one US citizen and one alien, and adoption to another foreign born man....or maybe there is no such case with such a convoluted fact pattern.