Natural Born Citizen

[Keith Broaders]

The "natural born Citizen."

August 29, 2013 at 10:53pm

The “natural born Citizen”

By William James Wynne

In order to know the true definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by looking back to the Founding Fathers.

In the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

In paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given "natural" rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 

Clearly, the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the "Laws of Nature” and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel.

Article I, Section VIII, Clause X of the US Constitution states, "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."

The Founders citation of this work in our Constitution meant that upon it's ratification, The  Law of Nations became the authoritative source for defining “Offences against the Law of Nations.”

Book One, Chapter 19, Section 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. 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."

Section 215.Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself,"for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. ButI suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

 Vattel makes it crystal clear that “natural born Citizen” status is determined solely by the citizenship of the fathers. Place of birth and citizenship of the mothers are IRRELEVANT!

Therefore, the Founders would have rightly declared Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama II ineligible because his father was British subject when he was born. Kenya did not gain independence from British rule until late in 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya#Independence

They would also rightly declare Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz ineligible.Jindal because his father was a citizen of India at the time of his birth, and Rubio and Cruz because their fathers were citizens of Cuba when they were born. http://capitolhilloutsider.com/really-another-ineligible-rnc-candid...

Not only did the Founders adhere to Vattel’s natural law definition of what they termed “natural born Citizen,” they used the Law of Nations extensively.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S...

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-a...

Another good source of information on the “natural born Citizen” is at the website of this Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst, www.jedipauly.comhttp://www.jedipauly.com/articles/2011_04_08_summaryandproof

In conclusion, all of the erroneous definitions must be abandoned, and the true definition accepted and enforced. It is the only definition the Founders accepted. We must follow their lead!

The only way We The People stop the unconstitutional precedent first set by Chester Alan Arthur and followed by the Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, and make null and void EVERYTHING he has done, is for all of us to get on the same page regarding this most critical issue. Failure to do so will inevitably result in others who are Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS or VP being placed on the ballot.

[William James Wynne]

Like your analogy and comments, Marty. Believe it or not, I have changed the mind of many people, just not enough of them.

Thanks for posting this article, Keith. :-)

[Adrien Nash]

Unfortunately, your diagnosis thatf only a major national calamity might turn the nation from the path it is one is true.  And worse still, is that one is very likely to happen eventually since the numbers needed to right this ship of state are presently probably not as great as are needed.  We'll find out in November.  If we get the sort of weak anti-liberal turn-out as in 2012, then our fate is sealed.

But we always have one thing on our side, and that is the Constitution.  It cannot be utterly ignored by the Supreme Court, even though they manage to pervert it big time, -some things are simple too unequivically written, -as was the recent case with the recess-appointments to the Labor board being ruled unconstitutional by 9-0, -including of course his own appointments.

So with the Constitution intact, we can't predict the future based on the past because the past does not contain any examples of a nation having a Constitution like ours, -although Nazi Germany probably came damn close.  But I have to assume that it did not include a Bill of Rights, and a strong court system.

[joseph cronin jr.]

The fox is already in the hen house .

[Michailah]

The reason congress allows him be president because they know you do not need to be a citizen of this country to president. Think about it..The president of the library here in town was born in Hong Kong . No one cares because his is the president of a corporation you do not need the born in certain place to be the president of a corporation. Barack is the President OF THE UNITED STATES, Not of America. Same with the Flag people driving around with a silly ass flag on their car Never realizing thats not an American flag. Thats a UNITED STATES FLAG,and its not even an original UNITED STATES FLAG because the original flag had stripes going vertical not horizontal. But who knows that just put any flag on your car and drive around like a damn fool.. Its a disgrace!

[Adrien Nash]

Right on target.  But I'd point out that what you illuminate is true even without the existence of the Law of Nations, but simply because of the meaning of the word "natural" and the principle of nature which it is tied to.  I've written over 100 expositions on the subject, and you might find the today's posting quite interesting since it supports the truth using what if found in U.S. law. 

It's title is Why Obama is an Alien by U.S. Law  (~ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD  Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs )

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/foreign-birth-and-acquisi...

Visit obama--nation.com for much, much more, -including diagrams explaining the many types and natures of citizenship.

Here's a small section: 

c. The Act of February 10, 1855 did not repeal the Act of April 14, 1802

Note: The Act of 1802, like that of 1795, and 1790, stated that children of persons who became naturalized citizens, if dwelling in the U.S., were also citizens (through their blood relationship with a father who had become a new American).  That meant two significant things. 

1. It they had left the U.S. or never emigrated with their parents, then they were not deemed to be Americans since they had chosen to remain foreigners. 

2.  Children of foreigners, prior to their naturalization, were foreigners also just like their father.  The acts made no mention of nor exception for children born in America.  From the national perspective, it was not a matter of where they were born, but to whom they were born.

But from the State perspective, it was generally the opposite!  A divergence, a dichotomy, a clash of perspectives; with the States continuing to allow the age-old common law citizenship for all born within their borders, while the national government went it owns way and only embraced natural law, -rejecting as unAmerican the British common law custom and tradition of native-birth based nationality assignment because it was contaminated with dual nationality which meant dual-allegiance and shared sovereignty, and no nation at that point was interested in or agreeable to sharing sovereignty with a foreign power. 

But that was not a concern of the States since national sovereignty was a federal issue, -not an intra-State issue.  They didn't care about an immigrant's foreign government.  They were future citizens of the State, and so were their native-born children, so by the age-old common law, they were deemed to be citizens from birth. 

Not so in the eyes of the national government.  They were aliens from birth, -just like their father whom they took after.  The only in-country consequence of the federal position was in regard to who was eligible to serve as President.  Nothing else, -since all citizens are equal (with that lone exception).