NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN: CITIZENSHIP IS NATURAL, THE RESULT OF PARENTAGE

[Vick]

A natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.'

"Native-born": "belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein." "Natural-born": "having a specified status or character by birth." Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc, 1981.

The Founding Fathers used the term "natural born" as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.

Both the Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act, defined a "natural born" citizen as one "whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country". The Naturalization Act of 1790 was designed to make it clear that people born overseas to American parents are already "natural-born" and do not need to be "naturalized." Whoever drew the Act followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain, and its language in this relation indicates that the first Congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, "natural-born citizens." The Act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains: that is, their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. By drawing on the "natural born" term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance. In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children whose fathers were natural-born subjects, regardless of where the children were born. Thus, the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.


Senators Introduce Resolution To Make Clear Senate's Position On Candidate's Status: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.510

Chertoff: If you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.


U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
   
VERMONT

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html


Senators: McCain Is A 'Natural Born Citizen'

Senators Introduce Resolution

To Make Clear Senate’s Position On Candidate's Status

WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008) – Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.

In February, The New York Times published a report calling into question the legality of McCain’s presidential run.  McCain was born to American citizens stationed on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone.  He has since served in the U.S. Navy, and, since 1983, has served in the U.S. Congress.

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy.  "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."

"It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president," said McCaskill.  "I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes."

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.

"That is mine, too," said Leahy.

The text of the resolution and Leahy’s remarks follow.

# # # # #

110TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION

S. RES. __

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

_______________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

_______________

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘"natural born Citizen" of the United States;

Whereas the term "natural born Citizen", as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen’" clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term "natural born Citizen";

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,

On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution

April 10, 2008

Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a "natural born Citizen," as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States.  Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President – the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.  Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years.  However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a "natural born Citizen" because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.

John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.  Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement.  As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document.  Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States.  He was widely understood to be eligible to be President.  Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility.  Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President.  The same is true today.

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.  I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind.  He did not.  I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.

I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this.

# # # # #

EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:

***

Chairman Leahy.  We will come back to that.  I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter.  Let me just ask this:  I believe--and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President.  I fully believe he does.  I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.  You are a former Federal judge.  You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law.  Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine.  Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff.  My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy.  That is mine, too.  Thank you.

# # # # #

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html


Principles of Statutory Construction - James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government [1989]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68537&layout=html&Itemid=27

What is a "natural born" citizen? An obvious interpretation of a "natural born" person would be a child born in the United States to American parents. Likewise, a "naturalized” citizen, that is a person born in a foreign country to foreign parents who later acquired American citizenship through naturalization, would not be eligible to serve as President because that person would not be a “natural born” citizen. What about a child born in a foreign country to American parents? This issue actually arose in 1967, when George Romney, Governor of Michigan, sought the presidency. Romney’s American parents were living in Mexico when he was born. Was he eligible for the office of President?

As Judge Story suggests, the proper way in which to interpret the eligibility clause under the circumstances would be to look at its original purpose, and to adopt that interpretation which "best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design, of the instrument.” Although the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention and the authors of The Federalist did not discuss at length the eligibility clause, we know from reason and experience, as Story explained, that "the great fundamental policy of all governments" is "to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils." This, he observed, "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe." It was thought dangerous, in other words, to make the presidency available to a person who might have just recently come to the United States and might still feel an allegiance to a king, a czar, or a foreign government. In light of these considerations, a ruling that George Romney, born of American parents, was a "natural born" citizen would seem to be consistent with the basic purpose of the eligibility clause.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68534&layout=html&Itemid=27

James McClellan (1937-2005) was a leading American political scientist, constitutional lawyer, and scholar


"All children born in a country of parents who are its citizens become themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These are natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

"At common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government." UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898); WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 U. S. 657 (1927)

"It is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)


John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" (March 9, 1866)

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0

Bingham argued before the House in 1871 "That Dr. [John Emilio] Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended today, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth."


Vattel: The Law of Nations

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. Vattel: The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 212

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. Vattel: The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 215

Vattel Decoded: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3302.0


Even though Vattel writes that "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (Book I, Section 212), he states that "the place of birth produces no change" in the "law of nature" that children follow the citizenship "of their fathers" (Book I, Section 215). Therefore, Vattel states that one's country will "only" be the place of birth for a child born "of a foreigner" (Book I, Section 212), of a foreign father whose foreign citizenship also belongs to his wife. This is precisely reflected in our early naturalization laws. In the vast majority of cases, then and now, natural-born citizens are born of two citizens within their own country, so they are also native-born, but being native-born is not sufficient to being natural-born.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=2690.0


According to James Kent the relationship of a person to a nation was, like the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, "derived from the law of nature," not from positive law. II J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 5 (Claytor's Pub. Unabridged Ed. 1827). Thus, a person born to parents whose covenant allegiance to a nation had previously been established was a "natural born citizen," born into the civil covenant, just like a child born into the marriage covenant of his father and mother. Such a person need not swear allegiance to become a citizen, for his allegiance is determined by birth. In contrast, a person born to parents in covenant allegiance to another nation could become a "naturalized” citizen, but only by swearing allegiance to another nation. As Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States permitting a citizen, other than a natural born citizen, to be President of the United States was an exception to "the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties." III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Section 1473 (Boston: Little, Brown: 1833). This "fundamental policy," in turn, was derived from the law of Moses which prohibited anyone, but a natural born citizen of Israel, from being king. Deuteronomy 17:14-15.

THE ELIGIBILITY CLAUSE: DERIVED FROM MOSAIC LAW (Deut. 17:14-15): http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0

[Vick]

Many people have questioned why the Founding Fathers did not define the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term.

Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." The Law of Nations: Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212

Obama, being born of a Kenyan citizen, is not a natural born citizen and consequently is not eligible for the Presidency.


Historical Documents Prove Obama Ineligible for Presidency

Written by Jeffrey West   
Dec 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Millions of Americans are awaiting an answer to the question of Barach Obama’s eligibility to be President, as a national drama unfolds. In June, a copy of his Certification of Live Birth was posted on his website, which was later proven to be altered electronically. A lawsuit against him by Atty. Phillip Berg has gone to the Supreme Court, in addition to another by Atty. Leo Donofrio. The Court ordered Obama to respond to Berg’s suit by December 1 and they will meet in conference on December 5 to consider hearing Donofrio’s suit. Additionally, Presidential candidate Alan Keyes has sued Obama in California for being ineligible. Meanwhile, rumors swirl about his birth and citizenship, including whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya or later became an Indonesian citizen.

However, this is all a diversion from the simple truth. The Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution that a Presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old and a "natural born citizen." It can now be easily proven from historical documents that Obama does not meet the latter requirement and is thus ineligible to be President, and that consequently a huge fraud has been perpetrated upon the American public by his candidacy.

Many people have questioned why the Founding Fathers did not define the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term. Since Obama's birth and before, Congress has passed many unconstitutional laws defining the phrase according to their ever-changing whims, with the result that it was consistently liberalized over time. It is a very sad statement about America that Congress cannot understand that the Constitution trumps their laws, hence the need for the Supreme Court to strike down their erroneous, unconstitutional laws.

The Supreme Court reiterated this in their decision of S.C. v. U.S. in 26US Supreme Court 110, 111 (1905) when they wrote: "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."

They further confirmed this by quoting Chief Justice John Marshall (Gibbons v. Ogden):

"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

My discovery of this historical evidence symbolically came to me on Thanksgiving as I was thinking about how God blessed America with a wonderful land and Constitutional form of government.  I was reading an article on the Internet discussing various legal attempts to define the phrase "natural born citizen" and I thought, "I know there is some literature or documents contemporaneous with the Founding Fathers that defines this phrase as they understood it." Suddenly I remembered that our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace.

Thankfully, I found a copy on the Constitution Society's website and sure enough, in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President.

There is also more recent corraboration. Obama and some other Democrats pushed through a Senate resolution in April recognizing Senator McCain's eligibility to run for President. The resolution appeared to have been worded so as to apply to Obama as well. But during the Senate Judiciary hearings on the bill, Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."  The resolution's Democratic co-author, Patrick Leahy, responded, "That is mine, too."

Thus we can see from the above evidence that Barach Obama, being born of a Kenyan citizen, is not a natural born citizen and consequently is not eligible for the Presidency. We can only pray that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and rules according to the Constitution, which is questionable since there are only four conservative Justices out of nine. This entire episode should have never reached this stage, so perhaps we will learn the lesson to pay more attention to our history, government and God's blessings. But since God ordains a nation's leaders, we can only pray that His will is done and that He shows mercy upon America.   

http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/896/45/

Address by Justice Antonin Scalia - Audio/Video

November 22, 2008

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp


http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.60


...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President.

Even though Vattel writes that "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (Book I, Section 212), he states that "the place of birth produces no change" in the "law of nature" that children follow the citizenship "of their fathers" (Book I, Section 215). Therefore, Vattel states that one's country will "only" be the place of birth for a child born "of a foreigner" (Book I, Section 212), of a foreign father whose foreign citizenship also belongs to his wife. This is precisely reflected in our early naturalization laws. In the vast majority of cases, then and now, natural-born citizens are born of two citizens within their own country, so they are also native-born, but being native-born is not sufficient to being natural-born.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=2690.0

Obama is not a natural born citizen, regardless of birth location

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3302.0

[Vick]

The Ultimate Question... A Kenyan Ruling The USA...

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.msg19086#msg19086


Even though Vattel writes that "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (Book I, Section 212), he states that "the place of birth produces no change" in the "law of nature" that children follow the citizenship "of their fathers" (Book I, Section 215). Therefore, Vattel states that one's country will "only" be the place of birth for a child born "of a foreigner" (Book I, Section 212), of a foreign father whose foreign citizenship also belongs to his wife. This is precisely reflected in our early naturalization laws. In the vast majority of cases, then and now, natural-born citizens are born of two citizens within their own country, so they are also native-born, but being native-born is not sufficient to being natural-born.

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father's who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Obama is not a natural born citizen, regardless of birth location. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen; he was a citizen of Kenya here in the U.S. on a student visa, which by itself made Obama/Soetoro ineligible for presidency, regardless of whether he was born in this country or Kenya, or whether he later lost his U.S. citizenship while immigrating to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship (by being adopted and naturalized), and later reaffirming his Indonesian citizenship while traveling on a Indonesian passport as an adult, and also most likely obtaining taxpayer funded financial aid as a Foreign Exchange student from Indonesia (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and any U.S. citizenship would therefore have to be relinquished).

[Heidi]

Vikaryan,

Thank you for your diligence in posting these natural-born citizen points .  I continue to pass them along to the media, my elected officials, and anyone seeking more information. 

Heidi

[Vick]

Vikaryan,

Thank you for your diligence in posting these natural-born citizen points .  I continue to pass them along to the media, my elected officials, and anyone seeking more information.  

Heidi

Everybody Must Know and Understand this simple truth!

Natural-Born Citizen: One who is a citizen by no act of law. One whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. Citizenship is Natural [the Result of Parentage], Not Artificial or Acquired.


Senators Introduce Resolution: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html


It's unanimous: McCain is 'natural born'

The Associated Press

Published: Thu, May. 01, 2008 12:30AM

Sen. John McCain was born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone 71 years ago. Does that make him the kind of "natural born" citizen the Founding Fathers determined could serve as president?

Yes, the Senate agreed, and senators passed a resolution to that effect by unanimous consent Wednesday.

Not that there was much doubt about it. Even Democrats, including rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have said they didn't see a problem with McCain meeting the constitutional requirement that only a "natural born" citizen can serve.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1056568.html


"A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN IS A PERSON BORN OF AMERICAN PARENTS" (Nov. 5, 1952)

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3956.0


The Framers were not men who dropped words in by accident. They thought about every word. They argued about every word.


# 272. If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and its meaning perfectly clear and definite, effect must be given to it. It is unnecessary to resort to any rules of statutory construction when the language of a statute is unambiguous. In those situations, the statute's plain meaning and intent govern.

273. Language is ambiguous if it admits of being understood in more than one way, refers to two or more things simultaneously, is difficult to comprehend, is of doubtful import, or lacks clearness and definiteness.

276. The purpose and object sought to be attained by the framers of the Constitution is to be looked for, and the will and intent of the people who ratified it is to be made effective.

324. The constitutional words deserve deference and precise definition.  

449. The Constitution of a State is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon by the temper of the times, nor to rise and fall with the tide of events: notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves. The Constitution is the basis of legislative authority; it lies at the foundation of all law, and is a rule and commission by which both Legislators and Judges are to proceed.

451. In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added.

452. When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who, for the time being, have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.

453. The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.

454. While the Constitution remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption; that it is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States.

456. We are bound to interpret the constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.

457. We must place ourselves in the position of the men who framed and adopted the Constitution, and inquire what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of its provisions.

458. The necessities which gave birth to the Constitution, the controversies which preceded its formation, and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purpose of tracing to its source any particular provision of the Constitution, in order thereby to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning.

459. Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.

460. Common sense is the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction.

461. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.

462. Where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction.

463. A statute is not a nose of wax to be changed from that which the plain language imports.

465. It is the text's meaning, and not the content of anyone's expectations or intentions, that binds us as law.

466. When words are free from doubt, they must be taken as the final expression of the legislative intent.

471. If the language is clear, and admits of but one meaning, there is no room for construction.

472. The language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning.

476. On every question of construction we should carry ourselves back to the time, when the constitution was adopted; recollect the spirit manifested in the debates; and instead of trying to find, what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one, in which it passed.

477. The language of the Constitution is to be read not as barren words found in a dictionary but as symbols of historic experience illumined by the presuppositions of those who employed them. Not what words did Madison and Hamilton use, but what was it in their minds which they conveyed?

478. The Constitution must be construed with due regard to the intent of the framers and the people adopting it, and the fundamental principle in interpreting a constitutional provision is to give effect to that intent.

479. The intention of the lawmaker constitutes the law.

482. A provision of the Constitution does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time. Constitutional grants of power and restrictions upon the exercise of power are not flexible as the doctrines of the common law are flexible.

483. The history of the times, the state of things existing when the provision was framed and adopted, should be looked to in order to ascertain the mischief and the remedy. As nearly as possible, we should place ourselves in the condition of those who framed and adopted it. And if the meaning be at all doubtful, the doubt should be resolved, wherever reasonably possible to do so, in a way to forward the evident purpose with which the provision was adopted.

486. The meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events.

497. The constitution means nothing now that it did not mean when it was adopted.

498. The object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people adopting it.

499. The object of construction, applied to a constitution, is to give effect to the intent of its framers and of the people in adopting it.

501. In order to arrive at the proper construction we should ascertain the purpose and object sought to be attained by the framers of the Constitution so as to make effective the intent of the people who adopted it.

502. The constitution must be viewed and construed as a whole, and every section, phrase and word given effect and harmonized if possible.

503. The purpose and object sought to be attained by the framers of the constitution is to be looked for, and the will and intent of the people who ratified it is to be made effective.

504. Constitutions should be construed in light of their framers' intent.

505. The principles of our constitution were not only meant for their time but for all time. The constitution must be construed in the sense in which the framers understood it. In other words, its meaning was fixed at the time it was adopted.

507. A constitutional provision should receive a consistent and uniform interpretation.

509. The "polestar" in the construction of constitutions is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it.

510.  In the interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution the object of the people in adopting it should be given effect; the polestar in the construction of the constitutional, as well as legislative, provision is the intention of the makers and adopters thereof.

511. The task of interpreting the constitution is to accomplish the manifest purpose of the provision.

517. To ascertain the meaning of a constitutional provision or rule of procedure we first look to the normal, plain meaning of the language.  

518. The intent of the framers is first sought from the terminology used in the provision, with each word being given its ordinary and popularly understood meaning.  

521. Since Constitutions are the basic and organic law, and are meant to be known and understood by all the people, the words used should be given the meaning which would be given to them in common and ordinary usage by the average man in interpreting them in relation to every day affairs.

522. If the meaning of the text is clear, the inquiry ends.

523. If the language is clear and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the provision's terms to inform our analysis.

524. If the words are not ambiguous, the inquiry is terminated, for the Court is not at liberty to search beyond the Constitution itself where the intention of the framers is clearly demonstrated by the phraseology utilized.

525. It is axiomatic that where the language of a Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its letter.

526. The constitution is an instrument from the people and a construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from the words employed in the document; and the courts may not color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their views as to how it should be written.

528. The line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers.

533. If the constitutional language is clear and unambiguous, we must accept and apply the plain meaning of that language.

536. A Constitution is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.

538. In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.  

541. If the enacting words are clear and unambiguous, there is little room for the interpretation.

542. The Supreme Court has constantly reiterated that the language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning

543. Where constitutional principles are involved, uniformity was intended.

You can never inject anything into a Constitution by construction which was not in it when adopted.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3376.0


The meaning and purpose of Natural Born is not ambiguous or nebulous. It is a child of no uncertain allegiances, with no possible alienages. Historical references and definitions of 'natural born' from Emerich de Vattel, Blackstone, John Jay, and the Common Law support the singular allegiance of a natural born citizen, or subject. Suffice it to say that nationality has historically devolved from the father. What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father's who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.


THE ELIGIBILITY CLAUSE: DERIVED FROM MOSAIC LAW (Deut. 17:14-15) : http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.msg14553;topicseen#msg14553


It is worth noting that there is considerable doubt expressed in the Palestinian Talmud (Y. Qidd. 3.12) about the status of the offspring of an Israelite female married to a gentile, with some authorities pronouncing the offspring mamzers (bastards) following the (non-Israelite) status of the father. It is therefore highly doubtful that such individuals would have been welcomed in the Israelite community even had they attempted to remain. This functional interpretation of tracing descent through the mother can also be seen in religious writings. Epstein (1942, 166) notes that Ezra's racialist motivation can be seen by his exclusive concern with Israelite men marrying foreign women because the children of unions with Israelite men would be brought up in the Israelite community while those of an Israelite female marrying a foreigner would be lost to the community. Moreover, as indicated by The Code of Maimonides, despite the concentration on investigating female relatives to assure family purity, the goal was to maintain the purity of the male line, and especially so in the case of priests.

[Vick]

Principles of Statutory Construction - James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government [1989]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68537&layout=html&Itemid=27

What is a "natural born" citizen? An obvious interpretation of a "natural born" person would be a child born in the United States to American parents. Likewise, a "naturalized” citizen, that is a person born in a foreign country to foreign parents who later acquired American citizenship through naturalization, would not be eligible to serve as President because that person would not be a “natural born” citizen. What about a child born in a foreign country to American parents? This issue actually arose in 1967, when George Romney, Governor of Michigan, sought the presidency. Romney’s American parents were living in Mexico when he was born. Was he eligible for the office of President?

As Judge Story suggests, the proper way in which to interpret the eligibility clause under the circumstances would be to look at its original purpose, and to adopt that interpretation which "best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design, of the instrument.” Although the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention and the authors of The Federalist did not discuss at length the eligibility clause, we know from reason and experience, as Story explained, that "the great fundamental policy of all governments" is "to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils." This, he observed, "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe." It was thought dangerous, in other words, to make the presidency available to a person who might have just recently come to the United States and might still feel an allegiance to a king, a czar, or a foreign government. In light of these considerations, a ruling that George Romney, born of American parents, was a "natural born" citizen would seem to be consistent with the basic purpose of the eligibility clause.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68534&layout=html&Itemid=27

James McClellan (1937-2005) was a leading American political scientist, constitutional lawyer, and scholar

The Bulletin - Dec 9, 1966

THE QUESTION SEEMS TO BE: IS GEORGE [ROMNEY] ELIGIBLE TO RUN?

"He would be a "natural born citizen" of the United States if the Constitution used the language of the Nationality Act of 1790, passed by the first Congress.

That law stated that "children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens." That language did not remain in subsequent laws governing citizenship.  

One authority on the presidency, however, is confident that the principle survives. In the 1957 edition of his book, "The Presidency," Edward S. Corwin of Princeton University wrote that "the general sense of the provision of the 1790 act has been continued in force to this day."

. . .

The Annotated Constitution, prepared by the Library of Congress, cites only one authority on this question in its most recent issue, published in 1963. It refers to a 1950 analysis written for the Cornell Law Quarterly by Warren Freeman of the Rutgers University Law School faculty.

Freeman argued that "a foreign-born child of American parents can rightly aspire to the position of president and hold such high office in accord with the eligibility requirements laid down both under common law principles and the entire body of statutory law."

He quoted heavily from an article written for the Albany Law Journal in 1904 by Alexander Porter Morse, whom he described as one of the foremost legal scholars on citizenship laws.

Morse had written that the authors of the Constitution "generally used precise language" and would have used the term, "native born citizens" if they had meant to exclude from the presidency citizens born abroad of American parents.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lcASAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A_cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1299,2394209&dq=natural-born+american+parents


The term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution draws on a long history in British common law. For example, a law passed in Britain in 1677 law says that "natural born" citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who apparently suggested the "natural born citizen" wording and who was the father of children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat. This wording also appears in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the first Congress, a Congress dominated by the Founding Fathers.

Alexander Porter Morse says that by drawing on the "natural born" term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing "the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance." Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99-100.

In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children "whose fathers were natural-born subjects," regardless of where the children were born.  Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." Morse, op.cit., p. 99.

He goes on to say that both the Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 naturalization act, defined a "natural born" citizen as one "whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country." Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

Morse's view is similar to a statement by Charles Pinckney in 1800, namely, that the presidential eligibility clause is designed "to insure ... attachment to the country" on the part of the President.

Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms "native-born" and "natural-born." The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines "native-born" as "belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein" and "natural-born" as "having a specified status or character by birth." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the American Language

If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, "it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.'" Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

It should be noted that Morse is reluctant to accept one implication of the dictionary definition of "native-born," namely, that it includes people born in the United States even if their parents are not citizens.

People born overseas to American parents are "natural-born". They clearly are the children of people who owe their allegiance to the United States. "Whoever drew the act [The Naturalization Act of 1790] followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, "natural-born citizens." The act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural -- the result of parentage -- and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements." Morse, op. cit., p. 100.  

"A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN IS A PERSON BORN OF AMERICAN PARENTS" (Nov. 5, 1952)

Archives

Eligibility for Presidency

J. R. D. C

November 8, 1952, Saturday

Page 16, 194 words

$3.95 - New York Times - Nov 8, 1952

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C17FB3B5E177B93CAA9178AD95F468585F9

LETTERS TO THE TIMES

Eligibility for Presidency

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

On Nov. 3 an article appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES entitled "Who Takes Office if the Victor Dies?" in which reference was made to the requirement "of native birth" as a qualification for President of the United States.

No mention of such a qualification as "native birth" is made in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, states that "No Person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"; and that a person must have attained the age of 35 years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

A natural-born citizen is a person born of American parents. Thus a person born abroad of American parents, according to the Constitution, would be eligible to the office of President.

This wording of the Constitution is believed to have been adopted as a tribute to Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies.

J.R.D.C

Washington, Nov. 5, 1952.


http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0

[Vick]

Alexander Porter Morse says that by drawing on the "natural born" term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing "the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance." Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99-100. In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children "whose fathers were natural-born subjects," regardless of where the children were born.  Morse, op. cit., p. 99. Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." Morse, op.cit., p. 99. He goes on to say that both the Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 naturalization act, defined a "natural born" citizen as one "whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country." Morse, op. cit., p. 99. Morse's view is similar to a statement by Charles Pinckney in 1800, namely, that the presidential eligibility clause is designed "to insure ... attachment to the country" on the part of the President.

Alexander Porter Morse [Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99-100.], one of the foremost legal scholars on citizenship laws, writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing "the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance."  Morse, op. cit, p. 99. Emphasis in the original. 

In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children "whose fathers were natural-born subjects," regardless of where the children were born. Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." Morse, op.cit., p. 99.

He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country." Morse, op. cit., p. 99

[Vick]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Natural+Born+Citizen

1.    Natural Born Citizen
   
Religion has been closely identified with our history and government. SCHOOL DIST. OF ABINGTON TP. V. SCHEMPP, 374 U. S. 203 (1963); VAN ORDEN V. PERRY, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. ENGEL V. VITALE, 370 U. S. 421 (1962); SCHOOL DIST. OF ABINGTON TP. V. SCHEMPP, 374 U. S. 203 (1963).

Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession. Each generation must learn anew that the Constitution's written terms embody ideas and aspirations that must survive more ages than one. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Covenant is a religious concept, originating in the ancient Near Eastern religions. Covenant is also a critical component of Christianity. Indeed, the very salvation offered through Jesus Christ is called the New Covenant. See, e.g., Luke 22:20. From Christianity, the idea of covenant was adopted by the American Founding Fathers: 'Viewing the United States Constitution as the critical expression of the American constitutional tradition, we move back in time, seeking the less differentiated, more embryonic expression of what is in that document. Our search takes us to the earliest state constitution, then to colonial documents of foundation that are essentially constitutional such as the Pilgrim Code of Law, and then to proto-constitutions such as the Mayflower Compact. The political covenants written by English colonists in America lead us to the church covenants written by radical Protestants in the late 1500s and early 1600s, and these in turn lead us back to the Covenant tradition of the Old Testament. The American constitutional tradition derives much of its form and content from the Judeo-Christian tradition as interpreted by the radical Protestant sects to which belonged so many of the original European settlers of British North America.' Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 6-7 (1982). One covenant principle that we see plainly in scripture is that a covenant may not be added to without mutual consent. We see God Himself revealing this principle in His covenant with Israel: "Do not add to what I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2. Any judge or justice who makes up out of whole cloth a new fundamental right, or arrogates to himself authority or power not granted by the Constitution, certainly adds to our national covenant, and thus becomes a covenant breaker.

In his landmark book, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, political scientist Donald Lutz reminds us that the genesis of a society's political values predates its written political documents. Indeed, a society's deepest values are born in its people's most ancient, primal, and unspoken worldview: 'Essentially a people share symbols and myths that provide meaning to their existence together and link them to some transcendent order. They can thus act together and answer the basic political questions: through what procedures do we reach collective decisions? By what standards do we judge our actions? What qualities or characteristics do we strive to maintain among ourselves? What kind of people do we wish to become? What qualities or characteristics do we seek or require in those who lead us? Far from being the repository of irrationality, these shared symbols and myths are the basis upon which collective, rational action is possible. Since these myths and symbols are frequently expressed in political documents, they tend to structure the form, determine the content, and define the meaning of the words in these documents. . . . By studying the political documents of a people, we can watch the gradual unfolding, elaboration and alteration of the myths and symbols that define them.' Through detailed empirical research, Lutz traces the roots of the core American constitutional tradition back in time to earlier state constitutions, colonial charters, English church covenants, and, ultimately, the Old Testament. Viewed in this fashion, the U.S. Constitution is only the latest written expression of Western values that have been developed and modified over thousands of years.

The further back one goes in American history, the more saturated with Hebraic references and allusions one finds American culture to be. Ironically, it is this Hebraic milieu rather than one grounded in the Christian New Testament, which most fueled the fires of motivation and imagination among American Christian colonists and founders of the Republic. Thus, Cecil Roth could write that were we to 'deprive modern Europe and America of their Hebraic heritage . . . the result would be barely recognizable.'

As scholars of religion and American history have repeatedly shown, American national identity has been shaped by the biblical language chosen by the first settlers, leaders, and preachers to emphasize both covenant and apocalypse. Of particular appeal to early Americans - from the Puritans to the architects of the American constitution - was the text of Deuteronomy, outlining the covenant between God and Israel. Like the Israelites, early Americans understood themselves to be entering into the Promised Land. Following the covenantal pattern outlined in Deuteronomy of prescribed moral and legal obligations to be kept by the people of Israel in return for God's blessing, the settlers understood themselves to be obligated to do God's will in return for God's blessings

The Puritans and their covenantal documents have had a lasting influence on American political life. As Sacvan Bercovitch, a scholar of American literature, puts it, 'Their influence appears most clearly in the extraordinary persistence of a rhetoric grounded in the Bible, and in the way that Americans keep returning to that rhetoric, especially in times of crisis, as a source of cohesion and continuity.' Some scholars have gone as far as to argue that the covenantal model was foundational for American political theory and practice.

Since Biblical times, it has been common practice to preclude foreigners from serving as political leaders. The Torah dictates, 'Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHVH thy God shall choose one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.'

As Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States permitting a citizen, other than a natural born citizen, to be President of the United States was an exception to "the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties." III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Section 1473 (Boston: Little, Brown: 1833). This "fundamental policy," in turn, was derived from the law of Moses which prohibited anyone, but a natural born citizen of Israel, from being king. Deuteronomy 17:14-15.

The basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Torah, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king. The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties.

The biblical text consistently affirms that God reserves for himself the right of choosing kings and prophets and of raising up judges (Dt 17:14-20; 18:18; Jdg 3:15). Deuteronomy 17:15 gives "firm yet emphatic permission" to Israel to have a king. YHVH's act of choosing a king serves as legitimizing him. The text stipulates that the king must be an Israelite and not a foreigner.

Natural Born status was a requirement to minimize international intrigue and prevent the highest office in the land being held by someone with foreign allegiances.

The Framers were all citizens, and most had prior loyalty to the King of England, once being British subjects. Because the U.S. was a newly formed nation, they exempted themselves from the natural-born citizen requirement by adding a grandfather clause. Martin Van Buren, born on December 5, 1782, was the first American President not born a British subject. Before he served in 1837, his seven presidential predecessors were eligible to serve because they were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787, indicating that he feared the possibility that the commander-in-chief could devolve upon someone who was the subject of a foreign power at the time of the birth: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Historians agree that fear that a foreign ruler might someday be imported to reign over the United States prompted Jay's letter.

According to James Kent the relationship of a person to a nation was, like the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, "derived from the law of nature," not from positive law. II J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 5 (Claytor's Pub. Unabridged Ed. 1827). Thus, a person born to parents whose covenant allegiance to a nation had previously been established was a "natural born citizen," born into the civil covenant, just like a child born into the marriage covenant of his father and mother. Such a person need not swear allegiance to become a citizen, for his allegiance is determined by birth. In contrast, a person born to parents in covenant allegiance to another nation could become a "naturalized” citizen, but only by swearing allegiance to another nation.

In order to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, both parents had to be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Thus, the 'grandfather clause'. The intent of our founding fathers was and is clear, that no Commander In Chief would have the potential for dual allegiances. Being 'born' with dual citizenship, and possible allegiances to Mexico, Kenya, or any other nation would thus not disqualify one from becoming a Senator, Congressman, or even Governor, but when it comes to POTUS and CIC the Constitution was very specific. If there was no difference then the Constitution would not contain the term "Natural Born Citizen" in Article II, and merely "Citizen" in Article I.

2.    Natural Born Citizen

What is a "natural born" citizen? An obvious interpretation of a "natural born" person would be a child born in the United States to American parents. Likewise, a "naturalized” citizen, that is a person born in a foreign country to foreign parents who later acquired American citizenship through naturalization, would not be eligible to serve as President because that person would not be a “natural born” citizen. What about a child born in a foreign country to American parents?

As Judge Story suggests, the proper way in which to interpret the eligibility clause under the circumstances would be to look at its original purpose, and to adopt that interpretation which "best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design, of the instrument.” Although the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention and the authors of The Federalist did not discuss at length the eligibility clause, we know from reason and experience, as Story explained, that "the great fundamental policy of all governments" is "to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils." This, he observed, "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe." It was thought dangerous, in other words, to make the presidency available to a person who might have just recently come to the United States and might still feel an allegiance to a king, a czar, or a foreign government.

The term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution draws on a long history in British common law. For example, a law passed in Britain in 1677 law says that "natural born" citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who apparently suggested the "natural born citizen" wording and who was the father of children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat. This wording also appears in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the first Congress, a Congress dominated by the Founding Fathers.

The Nationality Act of 1790, passed by the first Congress, stated that "children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens." That language did not remain in subsequent laws governing citizenship.

One authority on the presidency is confident that the principle survives. In the 1957 edition of his book, "The Presidency," Edward S. Corwin of Princeton University wrote that "the general sense of the provision of the 1790 act has been continued in force to this day."

The Annotated Constitution, prepared by the Library of Congress, cites only one authority on this question in its most recent issue, published in 1963. It refers to a 1950 analysis written for the Cornell Law Quarterly by Warren Freeman of the Rutgers University Law School faculty.

Freeman argued that "a foreign-born child of American parents can rightly aspire to the position of president and hold such high office in accord with the eligibility requirements laid down both under common law principles and the entire body of statutory law." He quoted heavily from an article written for the Albany Law Journal in 1904 by Alexander Porter Morse, whom he described as one of the foremost legal scholars on citizenship laws. Morse had written that the authors of the Constitution "generally used precise language" and would have used the term, "native born citizens" if they had meant to exclude from the presidency citizens born abroad of American parents.

The Framers were not men who dropped words in by accident. They thought about every word. They argued about every word. No word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added.

The children of American citizens born abroad were always natural born citizens. It is grossly incorrect to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applies to everybody born in the United States, irrespective of circumstances. It is grossly incorrect to conclude that everybody born in the United States, irrespective of circumstances, is eligible to the Presidency, while the children of American citizens, born abroad, are not.

If the meaning of the text is clear, the inquiry ends. A natural born citizen is a person born of American parents. Thus a person born abroad of American parents, according to the Constitution, would be eligible to the office of President. This wording of the Constitution is believed to have been adopted as a tribute to Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies.

3.    Natural Born Citizen   

1. Those born of parents who are citizens.

2. A person born of American parents. Thus a person born abroad of American parents, according to the Constitution, would be eligible to the office of President.

3. One whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

4. Those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father's who are themselves citizens of the United States.

5. One who is a citizen by no act of law.

If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law, they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature.

Children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.

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. Vattel, The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 212.

The Framers were not men who dropped words in by accident. They thought about every word. They argued about every word.

By drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance. Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99. The framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. Morse, op. cit, p. 99.

The presidential eligibility clause was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. The Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act, defined a "natural born" citizen as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. Morse, op. cit., p. 99. Whoever drew the Act followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, "natural-born citizens." The act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural -- the result of parentage -- and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. Morse, op. cit., p. 100.

If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.' Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

It should be noted that Morse is reluctant to accept one implication of the dictionary definition of "native-born," namely, that it includes people born in the United States even if their parents are not citizens.

If you are born of American parents, you are a Natural Born Citizen.

[Vick]

To be a natural born citizen your parents must be citizens of the US at the time of your birth...

The framers of the US Constitution thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. The presidential eligibility clause was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.


[T]he fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes. 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103.
 
http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.msg17882#msg17882


RE: RE: Two Examples of Native-Born Aliens
Posted by GVA on Apr 28, 2009 17:23

Thanks, PhoxarRed, for fully referencing Justice Gray's quote in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1874) that states that there has "never" been doubts as to the "class" of "natives, or natural-born citizens" who were "born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Chief Justice Fuller agreed in his dissent, with the exception that he more fully understood the meaning of natural-born citizenship by acknowledging the special case of children born of citizens outside of the United States, which really hits on the primacy of the citizenship/allegiance of the parents. Both sides in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark did not agree as to the citizenship of a child born in the United States to legal Chinese residents in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, and they did not rule on natural-born citizenship, but they both essentially agreed on natural-born citizenship as a unambiguous concept.

http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235&pageNo=15


Saturday, December 20, 2008

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html

Even if Obama was born on United States soil and is a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, that is not sufficient to make him eligible to be President. He still has to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and thereby satisfy the Constitution’s requirements for eligibility to be President. Again, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . .”

Since Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama’s birth, then Obama was a British Citizen “at birth.” Obama has admitted this reality. Even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he was born on US soil, he still would not be eligible to be President. The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that is why the Framers declared that, while they and so many others were technically (by law) Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens.” Hence, they included a grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” In other words, even if you were not a “natural born Citizen,” if you were a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, you were eligible to be President. The inclusion of the grandfather clause proves that the Framers saw a clear distinction between “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen.” If there were no distinction, there would not have been a need to include the clause, for the term “Citizen” would have sufficed when spelling out the qualifications to be President. The Framers recognized that a person who was just a “Citizen” could still have divided loyalties and allegiance between the United States and some other country. It is also important to note that many of the then living population were subjects of England or some other country, either having been born in that foreign country or born to foreign parents or both. The Framers did not exclude these individuals from being President, provided that they were citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted. The laws of the individual States would have determined citizenship at this time. This group would eventually die out and then the “natural born Citizen” requirement would prevail and provide further security for the new nation, for the question of divided loyalties would be over. Nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause, for he or she including Obama was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time the Constitution was adopted. Hence, being a “Citizen of the United States” is necessary but not sufficient to satisfy Article 2’s presidential eligibility requirements. What is also necessary is that a person also be a “natural born Citizen.”

Some argue that Obama is a “citizen” of the U.S. because he was born in Hawaii and that is sufficient to be a “natural born Citizen.” But if just being born on U.S. soil is sufficient, then why did the Framers have to include the grandfather clause in Article II? After all, they recognized in their grandfather clause that the person was a U.S. citizen but still they had to make a special provision to allow that person to be President, that provision being only if he was such a citizen at the time that the United States Constitution was adopted. It is clear that once time passed, the Framers expected the President to be not only a citizen but also a “natural born Citizen.” Obama’s current status is the same as many including the Framers themselves during the Constitutional Convention. He may be a “Citizen” just as they were, but he is not a “natural born Citizen” as many of them were not. But the difference between Obama and those individuals is that Obama cannot take advantage of Article II’s grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President.

Some argue that American law on citizenship cannot be trumped by English law on the same subject and that therefore what English law may have said about Obama’s citizenship when he was born is not relevant on the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Maybe it is not clear to these individuals that there is a difference between how we determine Obama’s father’s citizenship and how we determine his son’s. On the former, there is no need to talk about whether English law trumps American law. His father was born in Kenya, a British colony at the time. He was therefore a British citizen under the British nationality law that applied at the time. The “trumping” point only applies when we look to Obama the son. The argument would be that we will not let a foreign nation tell us what the citizenship is of a child born on U.S. soil. I agree with that. But that argument misses the point. We only need to consider that Obama, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or some other location, was born to a mother that was a U.S. citizen and a father who was a British citizen. If “natural born Citizen” means that you must be born on U.S. soil and that both your parents at the time that you are born need to be U.S. citizens, then Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” We do not need to resort to “trumping” to arrive at this simple conclusion.

These same individuals argue that it is not relevant what the citizenship of Obama’s father was when Obama was born. I maintain that as it applies to being President and Commander in Chief of the United States, “natural born Citizen” means that you have to be born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who are both U.S. citizens when you are born. If one of the child’s parents is not a U.S. citizen when he or she is born, that child is not a “natural born Citizen.” These individuals would be correct only if the Framers of the Constitution, in specifying the requirements to be President and Commander in Chief of the new nation, did not care where a child’s parents were born and only required that child to be born on U.S. soil. I do not believe that this was their position for the following reasons.

Some argue that no U.S. citizen parents and others argue just one U.S. citizen parent is all you need for a baby born on U.S. soil to be a “natural born Citizen.” Since, Obama was born on U.S soil, the status of his parents is immaterial or he had a U.S. citizen mother, making him a “natural born Citizen.” But having no U.S. citizen parents or even just one U.S. citizen parent is not sufficient to give the U.S. born child the special status to be eligible to be President. It would not make sense to allow no U.S. citizen parents, for parents have a great influence on their children. It also would not make sense to allow just one U.S. citizen parent to be sufficient, for each parent has just as much influence as the other on his or her child. E. de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (which is an authoritative text on the meaning of “natural born Citizen” and which Justice Scalia has cited in one of his past Supreme Court decisions) does not require just one parent to be a citizen of the child to consider that child a “natural born Citizen.” Here is the text:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792)
Law of Nations (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. 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. Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, § 212. ‘The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. * * * The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.’

The text starts by stating that “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (emphasis supplied). Note that the noun (“parents”) and verb (“are”) are in the plural. The text does later use the word “father.” But it also says “fathers” when referring to the children’s parents. Hence, Vattel used parents and fathers interchangeably.

I have found support for my interpretation in a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on August 1, 1938, Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938). The Supreme Court did affirm the decision at 307 U.S. 325 (1939). The language that I quote is from the Court of Appeals and not from the Supreme Court:


“The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:

“* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”

his doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said

“The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil.” (footnote omitted).

This language shows that under Roman law which has had a significant influence in the development of law of Europe, citizenship depended upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. E. de Vattel was a Swiss jurist and would have been influence by the law that existed at the time in Europe. He would have studied why this ancient law placed such a great emphasis on the nationality of the child’s parents. The passage above from Law of Nations shows that Vatell believed that a “true citizen” was one who acquired that citizenship through nature by being born to two parents who shared the same allegiance as the child and not one who was just tied to the soil.

Indeed, there is a reason why the Framers added the adverb “natural” to the verb “born.” If there were no special meaning to the use of both words together, one could easily argue that “natural” is redundant, for any birth at the time of the writing of the Constitution was nothing but natural. I submit that by using the word “natural,” the Framers believed that the child was tied to the parents and not just the soil, for a baby comes from his parents and not the soil. It is also amazing that Article II, in mentioning “natural born Citizen,” does not state that the child has to be born on U.S. soil.Consider that the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This is the only place in the Constitution where one will find any reference to a person being born on U.S. soil being a “Citizen,” but only provided that he or she is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it is this qualifying phrase that brings the parents' allegiance back into the equation. Just using the word “born” would have made the citizenship requirement satisfied simply by being born on the soil. But the Framers said “natural born.” Hence, they must have been thinking of more than just the soil. They must have been thinking of the child’s parents joining together in the natural act of procreation and thereby giving their respective citizenships to their new born. It was these children, born to these parents who had the same allegiance as each other, who would become “true citizens” (Vattel). Hence, both natural elements (soil and blood [parental citizenship]) are needed to be a “natural born Citizen.”

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who was born in New York City and later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." In Federalist Paper #64, Jay wrote that the President should be a man “of whom the people have had time to form a judgment.” He explained that this was one main reason for the eligibility requirements. It is interesting to note that before the Revolutionary War started, Jay served on the New York Provincial Congress committee to detect and defeat conspiracies, which monitored British actions. Jay also wrote the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixty-fourth articles of the Federalist Papers, all of which except the sixty-fourth concerned the dangers from foreign force and influence. We have to remember that during the American Revolution, the colonies were inhabited by people loyal to the Revolution and those loyal to England. Indeed, the Founding Fathers had a firsthand experience with a population with divided allegiances. They must have known that just being born in a place did not necessarily make you loyal to that place alone. They must have concluded that if you combine being born in a certain place with the influence that your mother and father’s citizenship has on a child, then there is a better chance of the child being loyal to just one place. After all, they had to decide what the qualifications to be President of the new nation were going to be and they wanted to make these requirements most exacting.

The Framers wanted to do everything they possibly could to make sure the President would be loyal only to the new nation. One safeguard was having the child’s parents both be U.S. citizens. This requirement makes sense when we consider that a child inherits so much of who he or she becomes from his mother and father. But they did not leave it just to the citizenship of the parents. Their decision was a wise one, for parents can manipulate this factor through American naturalization laws. Hence, they also factored in an immutable element-where the child is born. The combination of these elements provided the most stringent test to be President and Commander in Chief.

There are also subsequent Congressional acts that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” It is interesting to note that George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law and if he disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill. One would then at first think that this legislation strongly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired from the child’s parents at birth, regardless of whether or not that birth had taken place on U.S. soil. But Congress changed this law in 1795 by removing the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and just leaving it “citizens.” This change in the law gives us a clear understanding of what the Congress perceived to be what the Framers of the Constitution understood “natural born Citizen” to mean. This legislative amendment by many members of Congress who had been members of the Constitutional Convention also shows that they recognized that there was a critical distinction between “natural born Citizen” and “citizen, ” a distinction important enough to have to pass a Congressional act to amend a prior law that was ill conceived in their eyes. It is also questionable whether the 1790 act is constitutional given the language of Article 2 which makes “natural born Citizen” one of the requirements to be President and distinguishes that status from mere citizen of the United States.

In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the previous 1790 law. Hence, the new law meant that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered “natural born Citizens” of the U.S. It seems that this was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those words in the Constitution. It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 act, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795. The 1795 amendment clearly suggests that the Framers wanted a child to be born on U.S. soil and of parents who were U.S citizens in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” It appears that at first (1790) the Congress was willing to sacrifice the sanctity of a "natural born Citizen," for children born abroad, provided that both parents were U.S. citizens. They probably figured that with both parents being U.S. citizens, the child had a better chance of acquiring the values of the parents and were willing to waive the connection to the soil. But by the time 1795 came along, the Congress must have realized that they could not diminish the exacting standard of an Article II "natural born Citizen," which required for natural born citizenship status that the child be born on U.S. soil to a mother and father both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. Hence, to further protect the new Nation, the Congress realized that if a child is not born on U.S. soil and if that child is born to U.S. citizen parents, he/she can still be a U.S. citizen, but not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Hence, it is clear from the actions of these Founders/Framers that when it came to a "natural born Citizen" as it applied to the President, they mandated that the child be born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. This latter standard gave the greatest protection to the nation and is what Article II mandates. I would also add that it could be argued that the 1790 Act was unconstitutional, for Congress was attempting to amend Article II of the Constitution by way of an Act of Congress. Finally, it does not matter whether 1790 or 1795 is closer in time to the enactment of the Constitution. At that time, we still had many of the Founding members in our legislature. Washington was still President. The act that is last in time is the one that counts and the one that has the power of law.

Further support for the two-parent requirement can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment itself which provides that a person born on U.S. soil or naturalized in the U.S. and “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen of the U.S. I submit that that jurisdiction must be complete and not partial, and both territorial and political. “To be ‘completely subject’ to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government. Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.” Wong Kim Ark (Chief Justice Fuller dissenting). Hence, to be completely subject, we would need that both parents give the child U.S. citizenship and no other allegiance.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

Additionally, and putting aside the debate as to what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, the Fourteenth Amendment tells us that if you are born in the United States or naturalized there, and subject to its jurisdiction, you are a U.S. citizen. Additionally, the 14th Amendment in no way amended the requirements of an Article II "natural born Citizen," for it was passed to secure the citizenship rights of former slaves who may have been born on U.S. soil and to keep the Supreme Court from declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of Congressional authority to pass such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a simple majority vote. Finally, the amendment uses the word “Citizen.” In other word even a naturalized person is also a Citizen, just as one who is born on U.S. soil. But we know that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President because he or she was not a “natural born Citizen” (i.e., did not acquire U.S. citizenship at the time of birth). Hence, there must be a difference between the meaning of “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” If there were no difference, a naturalized person could maintain that he or she is a Citizen of the U.S. under the Fourteenth Amendment and being a Citizen is eligible to be President. But we do not accept that. Some have called for a Constitutional amendment to change this. Hence, the difference between the two terms must exist.

Some argue that the decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) is the final word on “natural born Citizen” and that under that decision, as long as Obama was born on U.S. soil, he is a “natural born Citizen.” It should be acknowledged that the concept of a person not being a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil because his or her parents are not U.S. citizens was rejected by Wong Kim Ark. But this holding, which only tells us what a “Citizen” is, has nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution. Any reference in the decision to the term “natural born Citizen” is mere dicta. Note: President Chester Arthur appointed Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion. Arthur, who was initially elected Vice-President, went to great lengths, including lying about when his father arrived in America from Ireland and burning his family papers, apparently to keep secret from the American public the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen. Arthur then became President when a close Arthur supporter assassinated President Garfield. Hence, the American voters never knew about Arthur’s true citizenship status and his presidency is no precedent on the issue. In any event, and despite what the dissenting opinion said about the majority view allowing U.S. born children of foreigners to run for President, the Wong Kim Ark case, which had nothing to do with interpreting what “natural born Citizen” means as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution, only defined what a U.S. “citizen” is, not what a U.S. “natural born Citizen” is as that term is used in that Article. In other words, all the case law and arguments as to what a “Citizen” is or is not do not answer the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” These arguments only go to the question of what is a “citizen.”

Finally, Section 301(g) INA has different requirements when conferring U.S. citizenship of a child born abroad, depending on whether the parents of the child are married and whether they are both U.S. citizens. For those parents who are married and both U.S. citizens at the time of birth, there is no minimum age requirement for the parents nor is there any minimum time requirement of U.S. residency. This category is the most liberal in granting the foreign-born child U.S. citizenship. Hence, it can be seen that even our own Congress has recognized the profound impact on a child, regardless of where he/she is born in the world, of being born to one or two parents who are U.S. citizens. We must keep in mind that citizenship under Congressional Acts is just that and not citizenship under the Constitution which at Article II prescribes the eligibility requirements to be President.

Some argue that our nation of immigrants will never stand for such a restrictive definition of “natural born Citizen.” I do not believe that our nation of immigrants will object to making it a little more difficult to be President and Commander in Chief. Such a requirement is not about being discriminatory, xenophobic, racist, un-democratic, archaic, or bigoted, but rather about providing for the security of the United States of America in an uncertain and very dangerous world. Given the weapons that humanity has created, the President of our country can decide whether the world will continue to exist or not. A person who is a citizen of this great country enjoys the same rights as all other U.S. citizens. Those rights include, but are not limited to, holding any public position except President, unless you are also a “native born Citizen.”

Some object by saying that we are raising the bar for Obama and Obama alone. But he wants to be President of the United States. I think that deserves great scrutiny. Also, he is the one who won the popular vote for President and now also that of the Electoral College. Should someone ask why the issue has never come up before when all the other “white” Presidents were running, the answer is that other than Chester Arthur, every President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens.

[Vick]

NATURAL BORN-CITIZEN

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN	powered by Aeva

DESCRIPTION

All persons born of American parents whether within or without the territory of the American Republic are "natural born citizens" of the United States.

[Vick]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7739168/NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN

[Vick]

The Conclusive Definition of Natural Born Citizen

The Conclusive Definition of Natural Born Citizen	powered by Aeva

[Vick]

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3900.0

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.msg17667;topicseen#msg17667

The words "not subject to any foreign power" do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html


A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. Eligibility for the Office of President. Alexander Porter Morse. 66 Albany LJ 99 [1904]


John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" (March 9, 1866)

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0


Bingham argued before the House in 1871 "That Dr. [John Emilio] Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended today, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth."


============================================================================================

Alexander Porter Morse [Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), pp. 99-100.], one of the foremost legal scholars on citizenship laws, writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing "the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance." Morse, op. cit, p. 99. Emphasis in the original. 

In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children "whose fathers were natural-born subjects," regardless of where the children were born. Morse, op. cit., p. 99.

Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." Morse, op.cit., p. 99.

He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country." Morse, op. cit., p. 99

A natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.'

"Native-born": "belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein." "Natural-born": "having a specified status or character by birth." Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc, 1981.

The Founding Fathers used the term "natural born" as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.

Both the Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act, defined a "natural born" citizen as one "whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country". The Naturalization Act of 1790 was designed to make it clear that people born overseas to American parents are already "natural-born" and do not need to be "naturalized." Whoever drew the Act followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain, and its language in this relation indicates that the first Congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, "natural-born citizens." The Act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains: that is, their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. By drawing on the "natural born" term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance. In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children whose fathers were natural-born subjects, regardless of where the children were born. Thus, the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.

=============================================================================================
Vattel: The Law of Nations

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. Vattel: The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 212

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. Vattel: The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 215

Vattel Decoded: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3302.0

===========================================================================================
Even though Vattel writes that "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (Book I, Section 212), he states that "the place of birth produces no change" in the "law of nature" that children follow the citizenship "of their fathers" (Book I, Section 215). Therefore, Vattel states that one's country will "only" be the place of birth for a child born "of a foreigner" (Book I, Section 212), of a foreign father whose foreign citizenship also belongs to his wife. This is precisely reflected in our early naturalization laws. In the vast majority of cases, then and now, natural-born citizens are born of two citizens within their own country, so they are also native-born, but being native-born is not sufficient to being natural-born.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=2690.0

According to James Kent the relationship of a person to a nation was, like the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, "derived from the law of nature," not from positive law. II J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 5 (Claytor's Pub. Unabridged Ed. 1827). Thus, a person born to parents whose covenant allegiance to a nation had previously been established was a "natural born citizen," born into the civil covenant, just like a child born into the marriage covenant of his father and mother. Such a person need not swear allegiance to become a citizen, for his allegiance is determined by birth. In contrast, a person born to parents in covenant allegiance to another nation could become a "naturalized” citizen, but only by swearing allegiance to another nation. As Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States permitting a citizen, other than a natural born citizen, to be President of the United States was an exception to "the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties." III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Section 1473 (Boston: Little, Brown: 1833). This "fundamental policy," in turn, was derived from the law of Moses which prohibited anyone, but a natural born citizen of Israel, from being king. Deuteronomy 17:14-15.

THE ELIGIBILITY CLAUSE: DERIVED FROM MOSAIC LAW (Deut. 17:14-15): http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0
=============================================================================================
Many people have questioned why the Founding Fathers did not define the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term.

Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." The Law of Nations: Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212

Obama, being born of a Kenyan citizen, is not a natural born citizen and consequently is not eligible for the Presidency.


http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3900.0
============================================================================================
"All children born in a country of parents who are its citizens become themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These are natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

"At common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government." UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898); WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 U. S. 657 (1927)

"It is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)


============================================================================================

Principles of Statutory Construction - James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government [1989]


http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68537&layout=html&Itemid=27

What is a "natural born" citizen? An obvious interpretation of a "natural born" person would be a child born in the United States to American parents. Likewise, a "naturalized” citizen, that is a person born in a foreign country to foreign parents who later acquired American citizenship through naturalization, would not be eligible to serve as President because that person would not be a “natural born” citizen. What about a child born in a foreign country to American parents? This issue actually arose in 1967, when George Romney, Governor of Michigan, sought the presidency. Romney’s American parents were living in Mexico when he was born. Was he eligible for the office of President?

As Judge Story suggests, the proper way in which to interpret the eligibility clause under the circumstances would be to look at its original purpose, and to adopt that interpretation which "best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design, of the instrument.” Although the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention and the authors of The Federalist did not discuss at length the eligibility clause, we know from reason and experience, as Story explained, that "the great fundamental policy of all governments" is "to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils." This, he observed, "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe." It was thought dangerous, in other words, to make the presidency available to a person who might have just recently come to the United States and might still feel an allegiance to a king, a czar, or a foreign government. In light of these considerations, a ruling that George Romney, born of American parents, was a "natural born" citizen would seem to be consistent with the basic purpose of the eligibility clause.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68534&layout=html&Itemid=27

James McClellan (1937-2005) was a leading American political scientist, constitutional lawyer, and scholar


===================================================
The doctrine of jus soli was initially premised on medieval notions of feudal obligation that have little application outside the context of an absolute monarchy.
The English common law of birth-right citizenship is not only contrary to the principles of the founding, but had been explicitly rejected by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act. Jurisdiction is not a geographical concept; it is a matter of political allegiance. Birth-right citizenship has no place in republican government; it is the relic of monarchy and should be recognized as such once again by Congress.
When the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated. It was emphatically the case that the rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution. The consensual basis of citizenship, so far from creating a permanent and indissoluble allegiance to the sovereign, maintains "the general right of expatriation, to be exercised in subordination to the public interests and subject to regulation.
The argument for birth-right citizenship is, of course, more suitable to feudalism than it is to republicanism. Under the feudal concept of citizenship, anyone born under the protection of the sovereign owed perpetual allegiance or fealty to the sovereign. It is hardly credible that the framers of the American Constitution would have contemplated a basis for citizenship that had its origins in the feudal regime.
The British common law defining who is a British subject is ill-suited to define American citizenship. The British common law definition is based upon a principle totally foreign to the American polity. In Britain, a "natural-born subject" owed allegiance to the king because he was born on British soil, of which the king was not only sovereign, but the sole proprietor. Thus, because a British subject's relationship to the king was as tenant to landlord, anyone born on British soil, whether of British parents or aliens, owed political allegiance to the king, and hence were British subjects. The question of one's allegiance under the doctrine of jus soli is not affected by such factors as language, ethnic origin, and national origin. Under English law, a child born within the king's domain to an alien and ethnically distinct family is just as much a British subject as a child born of an ancient and noble Anglo-Saxon line. By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject.

The doctrine of jus soli was initially premised on medieval notions of feudal obligation that have little application outside the context of an absolute monarchy.

A subject owed a "natural" and permanent debt of allegiance to his lord in return for the protection received at birth. In exchange, the sovereign also owed a permanent duty of protection to the subject, so long as the sovereign remained able to provide it. The resulting political community consisted of an aggregation of feudal relationships between sovereign and subject.

Reply 648: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.645

[Vick]

The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

http://www.birthers.org/USC/14.html

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

 

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

 

Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

 

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.

 

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

 

Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

 

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

 

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

 

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.”  This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

 
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

 

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

 

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

 

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized.  In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

 

1.      The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2.      Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

3.      Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)  The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

4.      Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

5.      Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

 

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

 

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

 

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth.  The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen.   Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act).  This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.   

 

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based  Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years.  This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

 

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

 

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

[Vick]

"The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship--not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [83 U.S. 36, 73] this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." ~  "The Slaughterhouse Cases"

Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan, dissenting in part in Wong, quote approvingly from Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 :

"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393); and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the state in which they reside (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306).

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the timeo f birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

Fuller and Harlan continued:

To be "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.

Generally speaking, I understand the subjects of the emperor of China--that ancient empire, with its history of thousands of years, and its unbroken continuity in belief, traditions, and government, in spite of revolutions and changes of dynasty--to be bound to him by every conception of duty and by every principle of their religion, of which filial piety is the first and greatest commandment; and formerly, perhaps still, their penal laws denounced the severest penalties on those who renounced their country and allegiance, and their abettors, and, in effect, held the relatives at home of Chinese in foreign lands as hostages for their loyalty. 2 And, [169 U.S. 649, 726] whatever concession may have been made by treaty in the direction of admitting the right of expatriation in some sense, they seem in the United States to have remained pilgrims and sojourners as all their fathers were. 149 U.S. 717 , 13 Sup. Ct. 1016. At all events, they have never been allowed by our laws to acquire our nationality, and, except in sporadic instances, do not appear ever to have desired to do so.

The fourteenth amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated, and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.

The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the county. 149 U.S. 707 , 13 Sup. Ct. 1016."