Replies

The dictionary definition of “natural-born” at the time of the writing of the Constitution was “having or possessing an attribute from birth” and no alternative definition existed at the time, nor was one provided by the Founders.

WRONG. The Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition from The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), a book of which Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” Franklin to Dumas, Dec. 9th, 1775.

§ 212. Citizens and natives. (1758)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Thank you for your #178.

It has been 8 years since many of us have thought about this issue. Many, including myself ultimately concluded the R party allowed O to skate because if disqualified it would have certainly allowed Hillary to gain the Oval Office. The R's political calculation at the Senate level to not convict BJ Clinton supports this view.

You cite specific 1758 language that NBC includes two citizen parents. The language certainly supports my argument that Jay, Washington and the ratifiers knew exactly the object desired with the term.

I don't immediately recognize the language and it isn't clear whether it is Franklin's or that it comes from the link at the bottom of your post. Perhaps I need more coffee. Can you help? to me however, what is the source of the language.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

This is codified in the Constitution within the Preamble.

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children. For whom else was it crafted to secure?

"Ourselves," in the context of the Preamble, would be the grandfathered citizens of the United States at the forming. "Our Posterity" would be the citizen children of citizen parents (We the People). Naturalized citizens become We the People, and then the Posterity of We the People are its natural born citizens.

"We the People" gave ourselves the power to directly elect our representatives to the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. If you cannot vote for a Representative, then you are NOT "We the People."

The natural born citizen clause was meant to "secure" the presidency. The presidency has the tighter requirement of being a natural born citizen in contrast to Congress which only required being a citizen. In other words, "citizen" equaled "We the People," while "natural born citizen" equaled "Posterity of We the People." Otherwise, why use the phrase "natural born" at all in the Constitution? The Framers went through many alterations of the Constitution before settling on this language, so the distinction must have had a purpose.

The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outsiders.

There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the citizenry in Congress.

People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is a de facto invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.

-PJ