Natural Born Citizenship

[Keith Broaders]

According to Vattel in his treatise, "The Law of Naions" a Natural Born Citizen must have a mother and a father who were citizens of the counry where the child was born, Sir William Blacksone, who was a highly respected English jurist took the position that only the citizenship of the father should be used to determine the citizenship of the child and that the location of the birth was irrelevamt.

Today neither of thse definitions seem to apply as anyone born in the territorial jurisdiction the Ubited States is considered a Natural Born Citizen, When citizenship is granted as a result of legislation ratjer than ancestory the persom's does not lawfully qualify as Natural Born.

The requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen became a requirement because the founders did not want the office of the Presidency to be potentially compromised by agents with potential loyalty to a foreign country

Today the courts consider anyone born in the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen which would permit the sons and daughter of Islamic Terrorists born in the United States to have the right to run for the presidency.

Ccitizenship in obtained in one of two ways. One is Natural and the other is Unnatural. Natural Born Citizens inherit their Citizenship from their father while unnaturally born Citizenship are naturalized or birth right citizens.

The words and phrases enshrined in the U.S. Constitution hold a timeless quality, their meanings meticulously chosen by the Founding Fathers. These definitions were not arbitrary but rooted in well-established principles of law and governance, designed to endure through the ages. One such term, “Natural Born Citizen,” as mentioned in Article 2, has been the subject of much debate in modern times. However, a closer examination of historical context and legal foundations reveals a steadfast definition that remains unaltered since the Constitution’s creation.

The Founding Fathers drew significant inspiration from The Law of Nations when crafting the Constitution and defining the powers of the new nation. The Law of Nations, a comprehensive legal treatise by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, was a cornerstone in the Founders’ understanding of international law, sovereignty, and citizenship. Vattel’s work was not merely influential; it was one of  the primary sources that shaped the legal terminology and principles embedded in the Constitution.

The term “Natural Born Citizen” finds its definitive clarity in The Law of Nations. Vattel explicitly defined a “natural-born citizen” as one born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was well understood and accepted during the drafting of the Constitution. This understanding is not just inferred but directly referenced in the Constitution itself. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, implicitly acknowledging its principles as foundational to the new American legal system.

Vattel’s precise wording in The Law of Nations (§ 212) leaves no room for ambiguity:

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 212 (T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1852). "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 definition was not only well-known but was the only source available at the time that offered such a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a “natural-born citizen.” The Founding Fathers, including figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, frequently referenced Vattel’s work when framing the Constitution. This is further evidenced by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington, where he stressed the necessity of ensuring that only a “Natural Born Citizen” could hold the office of President to prevent foreign influence.

Moreover, Vattel’s influence extended beyond the drafting of the Constitution and into the judicial interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has referenced Vattel’s work in dozens of rulings to define key constitutional principles and terms. For example:

• Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The Supreme Court referenced Vattel to articulate principles of state sovereignty and the law of nations, which were foundational in determining the relationship between states and the federal government.
• The Paquete Habana (1900): This case relied on The Law of Nations to affirm that international law is part of U.S. law, emphasizing the relevance of Vattel’s principles in the American legal system.
• Ware v. Hylton (1796): Vattel’s views on treaties and international obligations were cited, underscoring his influence on how the Supreme Court interpreted treaty obligations under the Constitution.
• Talbot v. Janson (1795): The Court used Vattel’s definitions of citizenship and allegiance to resolve questions of dual nationality and expatriation.

These cases demonstrate that the principles set forth in The Law of Nations were not merely theoretical but were actively applied by the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution and guide legal decisions.

Fast forward to the present day, and we encounter a shift in interpretation. Modern discourse often suggests that being born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship, suffices to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” This reinterpretation diverges from the original intent and understanding of the Founding Fathers. It overlooks the significance placed on lineage and the transmission of citizenship through parentage.

It’s important to note that while William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) defined “natural-born subjects” based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), the American Founders were consciously distancing themselves from the English monarchical system. They sought to establish a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, free from the hereditary and territorial notions of allegiance inherent in a monarchy. Therefore, they favored Vattel’s jus sanguinis (right of blood) approach, which emphasized citizenship through parentage, aligning more closely with the ideals of a self-determining republic.

For example, some contemporary sources, such as the Cornell Law School’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” misinterpret the term and even misquote the Supreme Court, pushing a narrative that distorts the historical definition. This modern reinterpretation suggests that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient for natural-born status, contradicting the stringent requirements originally set by the Founding Fathers.

[Keith Broaders]

The words and phrases enshrined in the U.S. Constitution hold a timeless quality, their meanings meticulously chosen by the Founding Fathers. These definitions were not arbitrary but rooted in well-established principles of law and governance, designed to endure through the ages. One such term, “Natural Born Citizen,” as mentioned in Article 2, has been the subject of much debate in modern times. However, a closer examination of historical context and legal foundations reveals a steadfast definition that remains unaltered since the Constitution’s creation.

The Founding Fathers drew significant inspiration from The Law of Nations when crafting the Constitution and defining the powers of the new nation. The Law of Nations, a comprehensive legal treatise by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, was a cornerstone in the Founders’ understanding of international law, sovereignty, and citizenship. Vattel’s work was not merely influential; it was one of  the primary sources that shaped the legal terminology and principles embedded in the Constitution.

The term “Natural Born Citizen” finds its definitive clarity in The Law of Nations. Vattel explicitly defined a “natural-born citizen” as one born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was well understood and accepted during the drafting of the Constitution. This understanding is not just inferred but directly referenced in the Constitution itself. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, implicitly acknowledging its principles as foundational to the new American legal system.

Vattel’s precise wording in The Law of Nations (§ 212) leaves no room for ambiguity:

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 212 (T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1852). "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 definition was not only well-known but was the only source available at the time that offered such a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a “natural-born citizen.” The Founding Fathers, including figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, frequently referenced Vattel’s work when framing the Constitution. This is further evidenced by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington, where he stressed the necessity of ensuring that only a “Natural Born Citizen” could hold the office of President to prevent foreign influence.

Moreover, Vattel’s influence extended beyond the drafting of the Constitution and into the judicial interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has referenced Vattel’s work in dozens of rulings to define key constitutional principles and terms. For example:

• Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The Supreme Court referenced Vattel to articulate principles of state sovereignty and the law of nations, which were foundational in determining the relationship between states and the federal government.
• The Paquete Habana (1900): This case relied on The Law of Nations to affirm that international law is part of U.S. law, emphasizing the relevance of Vattel’s principles in the American legal system.
• Ware v. Hylton (1796): Vattel’s views on treaties and international obligations were cited, underscoring his influence on how the Supreme Court interpreted treaty obligations under the Constitution.
• Talbot v. Janson (1795): The Court used Vattel’s definitions of citizenship and allegiance to resolve questions of dual nationality and expatriation.

These cases demonstrate that the principles set forth in The Law of Nations were not merely theoretical but were actively applied by the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution and guide legal decisions.

Fast forward to the present day, and we encounter a shift in interpretation. Modern discourse often suggests that being born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship, suffices to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” This reinterpretation diverges from the original intent and understanding of the Founding Fathers. It overlooks the significance placed on lineage and the transmission of citizenship through parentage.

It’s important to note that while William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) defined “natural-born subjects” based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), the American Founders were consciously distancing themselves from the English monarchical system. They sought to establish a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, free from the hereditary and territorial notions of allegiance inherent in a monarchy. Therefore, they favored Vattel’s jus sanguinis (right of blood) approach, which emphasized citizenship through parentage, aligning more closely with the ideals of a self-determining republic.

For example, some contemporary sources, such as the Cornell Law School’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” misinterpret the term and even misquote the Supreme Court, pushing a narrative that distorts the historical definition. This modern reinterpretation suggests that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient for natural-born status, contradicting the stringent requirements originally set by the Founding Fathers.