The Founders’ Understanding Of The Phrase ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Who shall be considered natural-born citizens? The term “natural born citizen” first appears in Article II, Section 1, and Amendment XII of the Constitution. For the Framers to have used such a term without explanation means there must have been a commonly understood, contemporary definition—and, in fact, there was. This definition can be found in Book 1, Sections 212-217, of “Law of Nations,” by the Franco-Swiss political philosopher, Emerich de Vattel, and first published in 1758.

§212. Citizens and natives. 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 ... 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.
§213. Inhabitants. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.
Advertisement

There is no doubt that the Framers were aware of this work, cited it, and relied on many of its concepts and terms. How do we know all this? Because the Framers told us so in their writings. Benjamin Franklin wrote this to Charles Dumas on December 9, 1775.

TO QUOTE BEN FRANKLIN:

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.

This means that the Framers were well aware of de Vattel’s work fully 12 years before the Constitutional Convention. Franklin himself was a member of both Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention.

Too bad those geniuses on the Supreme Court don’t understand this, they could have saved the country.
When usurper Soetero was allowed to run, let alone be elected, they could have stepped in, with authority, but they failed.
The meaning has since been watered down, and few seem to understand the importance. I fear we’re over the edge of the waterfall, at this point.

Most gloss over the most important word:

Plural: PARENTS, NOT (a) parent. That means 2, the man and the woman. Not 2 men, not 2 women, not just one or the other.

PARENTS, SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Both citizenS at the time of birth.

“Too bad those geniuses on the Supreme Court don’t understand this, they could have saved the country.
When usurper Soetero was allowed to run, let alone be elected, they could have stepped in, with authority, but they failed.
The meaning has since been watered down, and few seem to understand the importance. I fear we’re over the edge of the waterfall, at this point.”

No the meaning wasn’t watered down. The modern progressives have tried to tell a different historical story. The claim that the United States, a nation that had fought the British, adopted British common law as it pertains to Citizenship and the Constitution. They would simply tell you that Vattel didn’t matter and with Blackstone you just change ‘Subject’ to ‘Citizen’ and it’s the same thing. The problem becomes that anyone who was born British was still British by Blackstone. They could be ‘impressed’ into naval service from American ships at sea onto British warships. That triggered the war of 1812.

History matters. Why would a young nation that had suffered so much in a prolonged war with the Crown except the Crowns definitions of its Citizens? The answer is it would not. This is why they accepted a Swiss writer from the nation that had been their ally, France, definitions.

Finally, the Supreme Court refused to hear ANY cases concerning Presidential eligibility OR rule on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. The ignored it deliberately because the ruling would have made Obama ineligible.

Let me correct myself. It would have at least forced investigations into his birth, which may have endangered ongoing foreign intelligence operations. His mother worked for the ‘Ford Foundation’ and Obama’s first job leaving college was with a potential CIA front in Chicago. The only thing I am sure of, is we don’t know the real story of Obama.

The problem is that this requirement has never been adhered to since the early days of the Republic. Immigrants to the United States were not really vetted until the late 19th century and it was pretty much a given, through the 1870’s, that you could just show up on our shores and get on with your life. Your children born here became defacto citizens. The Kim Won Ark decision, references this very subject in an obtuse way.

“When usurper Soetero was allowed to run, let alone be elected, they could have stepped in, with authority, but they failed.“
——————

Can you cite a case where the Supreme Court acted on an issue without a case in front of them? I don’t think they have ever done it.

(I just checked…they are prohibited from acting that way by the Constitution.)

Can you cite a case where the Supreme Court acted on an issue without a case in front of them? I don’t think they have ever done it.

They had cases concerning the term “Natural Born Citizen”, and refused to hear them as applied to Presidential Eligibility.

First, they may have been protecting the intelligence work product that was Obama and his family. Second, I think they refuse because the believe that it’s a political decision that should be made by the public after the Media (freedom of speech) has informed them. The problem is that the media isn’t free, it’s clearly under the thumb of the ‘Intelligence Apparatus’ of the US government. (See Twitter for understanding). We just don’t know.

They refused to hear them because the plaintiff did not have “standing.”

Elections are weird because they fall under the state’s purview. It is up to the state to determine if the people on their ballots meet the requirements for candidacy. If the plaintiff was not from that state, the decision in the state would not affect them.

I understand the frustration with the process. I am merely trying to be objective with how the process works.

Asking the courts to intercede without a “case or controversy” (as it is written in the Constitution) is just not going to happen. That precedent goes back to the 1790s.

“On June 17, 2010, President Barack Obama formally nominated Boasberg to the district court for the District of Columbia”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boasberg

Maybe some judges didn’t come to the bench in a lawful manner.

I know it would create a legal mess, but Trump could really reshape the federal courts. To clean up the mess he’d have to install more than would get removed. So many that there would be no need for Trump’s successor to nominate lower-level judges.

Federal laws are still valid even if the guy in the Oval Office wasn’t qualified under the Constitution.

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.

For the Founders, only the children of citizens are themselves “natural born citizens.”