32 votes

Natural- born citizen defined

FACT: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
FACT: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made
FACT: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212
FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, '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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'
http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master

FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. To the nest of my knowledge, NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph):
"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens." (emphasis mine)
To read for yourself, click on link below, click pp 961-1920, type in 1639 in box next to 'Turn to image', click on 'Turn to image'. The above quote is in column 1, paragraph 3.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor37

I would advise everyone to print the image of that page before they 'disappear it'.

I do not know what more proof is needed. It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'. It is our duty to know our laws so none pervert them.

Cruz is INELEIGIBLE to be President and so is Obama but in this lawless country no one seems to know how to rectify the latter problem.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Do who is not a natural born citizen?

McCain was born for US citizen parents, but in Panama, not even on a US military base.

Cruz was born in Canada of one non-US citizen parent and one US citizen parent.

Obama alleges he was born in the US, but to one non-US citizen parent and one US citizen parent.

To me it looks clear that you must be born within US territorial borders to parents who are both US citizens at the time of your birth to qualify as a natural born citizen.

If someone runs for President and is not a natural born citizen, which he clearly would know, how could anyone possibly think he would respect the rest of the Constitution? Obama has proved that point many times over.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

No matter how they were born

They sure were not elected in free and fair elections.

sovereign

For those who are interested

For those who are interested in studying the issue of natural born citizen in much greater depth, I strongly recommend that you check out an expert in the field, New Jersey attorney Mario Appuzzo, who has done extensive research, written extensively on the matter and has brought numerous lawsuits challenging the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama and others. A sample of his writing follows:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied upon ancient Latin maxims to interpret laws and they would expect us today to do the same when interpreting the Constitution.

“Salus populi suprema lex” was a cardinal maxim of the ancient Roman empire. It means the welfare of the people is the supreme law. Black's Law Dictionary 1202 (5th ed. 1979).

Using this maxim, we are told that we are to interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in the best interest of the nation and its people.

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers believed that allegiance to a nation, its people, and their ideals best promoted and preserved that nation, its people, and their ideals. Hence, they believed that allegiance promote the welfare of the people.

Of all public offices mentioned in the Constitution, only the President/Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice-President are required to be “natural born Citizens.” These are unique, singular and all-powerful civil and military positions. With the clause applying only to the unique constitutional office of President and Commander (the Vice-President was included by the Twelfth Amendment ratified in 1804), the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers told us that we are to give to the clause the highest level of allegiance, for they expected the President to possess that high level of allegiance to the nation and its people. Hence, among all our citizens, it is only the “natural born Citizen” which requires the highest form of allegiance.

With the meaning of the clause being driven by its attachment to the unique office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and with those offices requiring that they be held by persons possessing the highest form of allegiance, the clause can only mean a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Born under such circumstances, the child is born with allegiance, faith, and loyalty only to the United States. Any other selected birth circumstances under the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, while sufficient to produce membership in our nation which our Constitution calls “citizen of the United States,” do not satisfy such a high standard of allegiance, for the member of our nation is allowed to be born with dual or triple conflicting allegiances. Such conflicting allegiances create doubt, whether real or imagined, in the total and unqualified commitment of the President and Commander in Chief to the United States. In matters of protecting American institutions, foreign relations, national security, and war, such doubts cannot be allowed to exist.

So, if we are to correctly interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause, which applies only to the Office of President/Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice-President, we must give to the clause the requirement of possessing the highest level of allegiance from the moment of birth. It is this high level of allegiance, held by the singular and all-powerful President from the moment of birth, which will best promote and preserve the nation, its people, and their ideals. This means that any person to be a “natural born Citizen” must be born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You're free to 'interpret' it

You're free to 'interpret' it any way you like, but as those definitions are not in the document that matters, these interpretations are mere mental exercises.

best to interpret it in such a way

that its inclusion in the document that matters makes no sense.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Why are you making the Constitution a dictionary?

Does it define 'general welfare'?
Does it define 'commerce'?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

McCain Born In A "Colon"?? Ha Ha

I knew it! He's a P.O.S.!! Someone in Panama says "Excuse me. I have to go launch a democrat." Then after giving birth to McCain, notices the sign near the commode: FLUSH TWICE. IT'S A LONG WAY TO WASHINGTON!! Ha! Talk about natural born, What's more natural than pinching a loaf? Maybe that's why he's in the GOP-to hide the fact that he was born a democrat!

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Vattel is quite clear:

"The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vattel acknowledges that countries may not be able to sustain and perpetuate themselves with children born in the country to citizen parents. For those children who are not born in the country to citizen parents, their rights of citizenship and inheritance follow the condition of their fathers.

Under this reading, Obama, Cruz, Jindall and Rubio (who are not natural born citizens) follow the condition of their fathers. Obama inherits British citizenship, Cruz and Rubio inherit Cuba citizenship, and Jindal inherits the condition of his father, a citizen of India.

Although the United States recognizes dual citizenship, dual citizenship is citizenship by law and can never be interpreted as natural born.

The major issue to this is

The major issue to this is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause. The government cannot say that "men can pass their citizenship on to their children" without saying that "women can pass their citizenship on to their children".

Now, you may say that this now means that you need both parents to be citizens. However, the 14th amendmentw as clear in that it does not mean to take away any rights or priviledges, but can be used to grant or extend priviledges. So the logical conclusion would be that both men and women can pass their citizenship on to their children.

More to the point, there are also many writings that simply say that natural-born citizen is a citizen who gets his citizenship by value of his birth...they don't have to go to a naturalization process. This would incluse anyone born in the US or those born to American abroad. Yes, in the latter case, you have to file paperwork to become a citizen. But, you technically have to do the same for any baby born here; you need to get a birth certificate, etc. It is simply an easier process.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"This would incluse anyone born in the US "

seems to contradict your statement in the preceding paragraph.
which is it?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I am merely pointing out

I am merely pointing out multiple ways of looking at it. The EPC argument is given a certain definition of natural-born citizen. The second argument I made is a rebuttal of that very definition of natural-born citizen.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

the definition of a natural born citizen

as required by the Constitution does not violate the EPC.
the goal being to prevent foreign influence from gaining the presidency.
both parents must be citizens, the child must be born on us soil.
any other definition renders the clause useless. why is there such intent to create a gray area where there is none?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Considering Perkins vs. Elg,

Considering Perkins vs. Elg, where only one parent needed to be a citizen for the defendant to be considered natural-born.

Also, consider that British common law specifically defined citizenship as something that passed through the father, with the highest level of citizenship being that of someone born to a father of England, while in England. The founders heavily borrowed from BCL.

Even Vattel's work, while using "parents", is a stretch to say it meant both parents. After all, littered throughout the law of nations as well as Vattel's other work is the notion that everything is passed through the father, including national loyalty. This is also consistent with how citizenship was decided during the founders' time; it was the father's blood that mattered, moreso even than locale.

Lastly, why didn't the founders simply say that? If they had wanted to say that the president could only be "a natural born citizen of two citizen parents," or "of at least one citizen parent," they could have and would have done so.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

are you suggesting

if the queen or say a princess gave birth in america the child would not be royalty? i would find that hard to believe.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

According to BCL? If the

According to BCL? If the father was not royalty, absolutely. Although in that case, the princess/queen would likely be executed for such an action. But if born to a royal father who recognized the child as his own, the child would be a royal no matter where he was born. Again, it is important to note that royalty laws and different from citizenship laws.

Vattel would probably say that royalty can pass through the father's blood alone, but natural-born citizenship requires being born on English soil.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Amendments to the Constitution

can't abrogate any other part of the Constitution. The person vying for the President spot must still follow the Constitutional requirement spelled out in Article II Section 1.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

What are you talking

What are you talking about?

Wouldn't the 13th and 16th amendments DIRECTLY prove you wrong? The 16th allowed for taxation without apportionment and the 13th amendment ended, the 3/5ths clause.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

tsk tsk tsk

Wrong. If you actually read and understood the Constitution, you wouldn’t be making wild claims.

Article 1 § 2 Clause 3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The 13th Amendment didn’t wipe out the ‘three fifths of all other Persons’ bit. What it did was do away with slavery except for punishment of crime. With the end of slavery, those slaves were now free persons. Should some new ‘other persons’ ever become recognized, only 3 out of 5 of them will be counted.

Now my question to you is if that is really the 13th Amendment or should it be the 14th?

As for the 16th Amendment, please see

http://www.dailypaul.com/242551/your-wrong-the-16th-amendmen...

and

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

How about the 12th amendment

How about the 12th amendment (Article II, section 1, clause 3)?

The 13th amendment also changed the original interpretation of the 5th amendment.

The 15th amendment (10th amendment)

The 17th amendment (Article 1, Section 3, clauses 1 and 2)

18th and 19th (9th/10th amendment)

20th amendment (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1)

23rd amendment (Article 1, Section 8)

25th amendment (Article II, Section 1, clause 6)

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

contrary to your belief

the Constitution is NOT a 'living' document.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I do not see how this

I do not see how this disproves my points. Those amendments clearly overwrote certain parts of the original Constitution.

Plus, you have the fact that your original interpretation of natural-born could be wrong.

Secondly, the Supreme Court agrees with me. Fundamentally, that is what matters as to whether or not something is "constitutional" or not. Meaning, that Obama is eligible because the Supreme Court says he is eligible. Even if you disagree with the decision (Article 1, section 9, clause 3).

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Plus, of course, there is

Plus, of course, there is Perkins vs. Elg to think about

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Couple of interesting links ...

... for people to read about the topic of citizenship in general and natural-born citizen in particular, written just after the adoption of the Constitution.

David Ramsey was alive during the American Revolution and was a historian of the time. In 1790, he wrote a dissertation on citizenship. Although he does not specifically address "natural born citizen," he explains citizenship as it was understood at the time of the founding. A couple of interesting tidbits: you have to read it as they understood, which is that there was no federal government citizenship, rather each person was a US citizen by way of being a citizen of a particular state; also, citizens in 1776 or so were required to pledge allegiance to their state, or they were asked to leave because they were suspected to be hostile to the revolution; also, the Constitution says representatives and senators must be CITIZENS for 7 and 9 years, but the president had to be a RESIDENT for 14 years. This is because they wanted the president to be someone who was around during the revolution, and the United States had only existed for less than 12 years at that time the Constitution would be ratified (1776 vs. 1787).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-...

Vattel's treatise, which is referenced in this thread, also discusses citizenship. This was written both as an argument for what SHOULD BE, based on previous works of Locke and others, but also a discussion of what other countries ACTUALLY DO regarding citizenship or subjectship. Some people writing in this thread take his words out-of-context.

He explores the idea of citizenship from a number of angles, but only uses the term "natural-born citizen" one time, where he says:

"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."

Every other reference is about "citizens" and not specifically "natural-born citizens." Also, there is a reference to "fathers" in the next sentence, but he later also discusses briefly the relevance of mothers.

Interesting to read the whole thing.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

Vattel

Every other reference is about "citizens" and not specifically "natural-born citizens."

Vattel clearly discusses natural-born citizens, and naturalized citizens. Do you think so little of Vattel's ability to construct a clear argument that you imagine he intended to create a third category category: citizens by nature at birth who are not natural born citizens?

Alternately you can see that Vattel clearly describes two categories, those who are citizens by nature at birth, and those who are citizens by an act of law (or the sovereign). He describes the simplest case of NBC, and from that draws the principle that he applies consistently not just there, to the case that the birthers like to take out of context, but throughout the passage, namely that presumption that the child's loyalty will follow the father's that shows us that the father's rights regarding citizenship naturally apply to the child as well. That's the principle that he applies in the simple case of NBC, note that the place of birth isn't part of that argument.

So when he gets to the more problematic cases, he applies the exact same argument that he applied to the simple case, arguing more than once that it's not the place of birth that matters, but the father's citizenship and loyalty. He's completely consistent about this throughout. And although he doesn't repeat "natural-born citizen" he clearly says that he's talking about citizenship that is acquired naturally at birth.

I suggest that he talks about natural-born citizens, and children who become citizens by nature at birth, applying the exact same argument throughout that discussion, because it's all the same category. Citizenship acquired naturally, at birth, as opposed to citizenship acquired by naturalization (which he *clearly* isn't talking about when he considers these cases of not being born on the home soil).

You can look at it and instead imagine that this man who writes careful, methodical and very clear arguments intended to describe the categories of natural born citizen and naturalized citizen, and a third category of children who are citizens naturally when born but not natural born citizens. But can you apply such a clownish interpretation and keep a straight face?

Seriously? ...

... are you incapable of having a serious discussion without resorting to personal attack ... or are you just a jacka**?

If you want a debate, that's fine. But don't be a dick while doing it.

Regarding Vattel, you are making the same type of claim that you say others make in error.

You claim that his word "parents" must be of the plural subject and cannot mean both mom and dad. You claim that it must mean all the people's parents, collectively.

But you claim the word "father" is of the individual subject (a particular person's father) rather than all people's fathers (like the "founding fathers").

It makes more sense to read it the opposite way you are.

There is only one instance where Vattel uses the term "natural-born citizen" and that is in context of both parents:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

That is a clear and specific statement. No room for ambiguity.

In his next sentence where he mentions fathers, he is using the plural sense (like we do the "founding fathers") to talk about a class of people, not the specific daddys of the individuals:

"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."

Furthermore, he does discuss mother once. In that reference, he makes the assumption that both father and mother are of the same citizenship.

It is a shame he is not more clear here, but it is what it is.

Yes, he does talk about children inheriting "citizenship" of their father, but that does not change the fact that he also discusses "natural-born citizenship" as being born on US soil to citizen parents.

If father is not a citizen, then the person would not be a natural-born citizen (according to my argument) nor would he be a citizen at all (according to your argument). So, there is no conflict here.

Any other birth situation, where the father is a citizen, would make the person a citizen according to Vattel (and according to you).

However, Vattel DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH A PERSON WOULD BE A "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN," only that he would be a citizen.

So ...

Where is YOUR evidence to support YOUR claim?

Where is the court case?

Where is the reference work circa 1787?

Tell me where you disagree

You claim that his word "parents" must be of the plural subject and cannot mean both mom and dad. You claim that it must mean all the people's parents, collectivel

I missed your point about this intitially, because it really wasn't what I meant to focus on at all, but we can come back to that if necessary. But first here's where I think we really disagree:

Any other birth situation, where the father is a citizen, would make the person a citizen according to Vattel (and according to you). However, Vattel DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH A PERSON WOULD BE A "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN," only that he would be a citizen.

Tell me where you disagree. We're talking about the case where the father is a citizen (and loyal) but the child is born out of the country. Section 215.

You agree that the child is a citizen at birth in that case, right?

And do you agree that Vattel says that this citizenship isn't the naturalized kind? He says "By the law of nature alone ..." and "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 ..." and the reference to 212 makes it clear that by "what nature has given him" Vattel means that the natural right of citizenship (in the father's country).

So if you agree with that, then on your reading this isn't the category of natural born citizen. And it isn't the category of naturalized citizen. it's a third category he doesn't give a name to, but we can describe it: this third category is that of a child who is naturally a citizen when born but not a natural born citizen.

I apologize for calling that view clownish. I do think that reading of Vattel, considering how carefully and consistently he constructs the argument and considering that the argument itself is *exactly* the same for both the natural-born citizen category and the naturally-a-citizen-when-born-but-not-natural-born-citizen category, is a bit strained. I think that when he says "natural-born citizen" he doesn't mean to introduce a name of a category, and then not mention it again, he means to say a citizen who is a citizen by nature when born. And he most definitely discusses other cases of citizens who are citizens by nature, when born, as in section 215.

Ok ...

... it's getting late and this will be my last post on this subject for now. If you reply, I'll read it later.

My position is not that Vattel (or Minor vs. Happersett) or anything else is the "be all, end all" in the debate of who is eligible to be president. My position is that Vattel and Minor both identify born on soil/2 citizen parents as natural-born citizens, and NO OTHER reference ANYWHERE that relies on original intent can be found that shows ANY OTHER SITUATION to be a "natural-born citizen." I suspect this is because the founders all understood what they meant in that era, but we have lost the meaning. I would like to know the meaning, and if I'm wrong, so be it. But I have never seen a denier provide any evidence.

So, I will ask you point blank: Do you have any evidence that shows -- with those words EXACTLY -- that anyone can be a "natural born citizen" by any OTHER way than being born on the country's soil with both parents as citizens?

The answer, I assume, is no. Therefore, there is no debate because the burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. Any person running for president (or anyone supporting such a person) must make the claim that they are eligible, and that claim must be backed up with proof. Absent the necessary proof, they are NOT ELIGIBLE. PERIOD.

That is my position, and the sum total of my interest in this topic.

Now, to address the topic more, I will say that the whole concept of "natural born" citizen is kinda weird. Vattel talks about citizenship at nature. But there is no such thing. Cave men did not have citizenship (as far as we know). This is really just something invented by European kings and philosophers but it does not exist in a state of nature.

So, anything Vattel or anyone else says about how citizenship flows from parent to child is an artificial construct that is just made up and enforced by people who ultimately want to control others.

It is no different than the "social contract theory," which Vattel wholeheartedly supports. It's bullsh*t, to be blunt.

Having said that, however, we do live in a world where these make-believe concepts are treated as real, and there are real a**holes out there with real guns and real black robes who have been brainwashed to believe it is all real. So, let's at least get a grip on what the hell it means, and we can ONLY do that by figuring out what the people who WROTE it meant.

In order to do that, we must turn to references at the time or court cases that have made declarations that those brainwashed people with real guns and real black robes will want to defend.

People who make excuses for Obama are not interested in truth. If they were, they would not make up bullsh*t arguments and read into things that are not there.

Yes, Vattel is clear as mud in some ways, but everything he writes is within the context of him believing that citizenship is a real thing. And within that context, he states what he understood was DEFINITELY a "natural-born citizen." The Minor court does the same.

Since there is NO evidence ANYWHERE of ANY KIND that clearly states the founders meant anything else when they voted during the constitutional convention on using the term "natural-born citizen," we can conclude this is what they meant. They had a law library handy. They had dozens of men who collectively probably read every book even remotely addressing these topics. THEY knew what they meant. We don't.

If it went to the Supreme Court today, I have no doubt they would justify a different reading because most of them are corrupted by power.

I also have no doubt that if Rubio or any of the others run for president that MOST Republicans will look the other way. I am encouraged that many here are not willing to give an R a pass when they think the R is doing the same dirty deed as the D is. Most Americans do not have that integrity, however. So, nothing will surprise me.

Is Vattel saying that his historical research and his logical conclusion is that the child inherits the citizenship of the father? Yes, unless the country passes a different law.

Does that mean that a person who is a "citizen" is also a "natural-born citizen?" No.

You can read into it anything you want, but your reading is a fantasy if you claim he is saying anything else.

If people want to claim that we should be good little citizens and follow the laws, then let's start by following the supreme law of the land. Let's not make up bullsh*t stories about what the writers meant. Let's understand what they meant. Otherwise, we are not following the law. And if we won't force each other to follow the #1 law, then nobody can legitimately claim that anybody should follow any law. Period.

And besides that ... where is the evidence that anything OTHER than born on the soil to 2 citizen parents equals a "natural born citizen?"

If you are in that camp (or anyone else reading this is), then the burden of proof is on you. I have demonstrated one way to be a natural born citizen. Anyone else have any other EVIDENCE?

*crickets*

Out for tonight.

Adios.

Natural born citizenship explained

Tommy - Your explanation of "natural born citizenship" is excellent.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Briefly

Your point hinges on "those words EXACTLY." Because (tell me if you're disagreeing but I don't see where you are) in 215 Vattel doesn't say "natural born citizen" but he talks about a child who becomes a citizen, naturally, when born. In in both cases he makes the exact same argument, namely that it's the father's citizenship and loyalty that matter.

So, when you insist on "those words EXACTLY" you're taking the position that in 215 he's talking about a child who becomes a citizen naturally when born but not a natural born citizen. I think that's a very strained reading. He uses the same justification in both places, which has nothing to do with the birthplace, and in one he says "natural-born" while in the other it's natural, and clearly when born, so to me it sounds to me like he's talking about the same category. And if does mean the same category for natural-born citizen in 212 and citizen naturally, when born, in 215, then there's your example right there in 215.

To *not* read this as the example you say you're looking for, on the other hand, you have to take 212 as being about natural born citizens, and 215 as being about children who become citizens naturally when born but are not naturally born citizens, and see this as a distinct third category that Vattel expects the reader to understand. If that seems like a reasonable way to interpret a writer as careful and methodical as Vattel, then we'll just have to disagree.

I'd be curious to know (if you care to get back to this) if you see any historic usage of "natural born citizen," or implicit understanding of it seen in the candidates that were viewed as eligible, that is *not* consistent with the view that Vattel means the same category in 212, described as natural-born, and in 215 (and later), described as natural, when born.

For example, there's the case of the first Republican candidate whose father was a French citizen. That's not the same as the born abroad case but it doesn't fit the birther definition of NBC, and yet there's no indication that Lincoln (who campaigned for him) or anyone else objected to the guy's eligibility. Which, again, makes sense if what they had in mind was my reading of Vattel. But if what they had in mind was the definition you want to apply, then how do you explain it? Wouldn't you have to conclude that he was ineligible and that Lincoln must have understood the Constitution well enough to know that? On the other hand if my interpretation is correct, then there's no conflict, because his US citizenship was acquired naturally, at birth, in the sense of section 215.

Or look at the naturalization act of 1790, just as an example of how the phrase was used at the time. On your reading, if they had the strict definition you suggest in mind, is what they wrote even coherent? On the other hand if they had the definition I suggest in mind, where Vattel intends natural-born in 212 to be the same category as natural, when born, in 215 and 216, then what they're writing is very naturally consistent with that reading of 215 and 216. In fact the last half of that act follows the outline of Vattel from 214 to 216, covering the case of naturalized citizens first (214) then distinguishing that from the cases of children born to citizens while at sea or abroad (216 and 215 respectively).

But again, if they had your strict definition in mind, can you find any coherence in what they wrote? They would, on your view, have understood 215 and 216 as being about a different category entirely, that of citizens naturally when born but not natural-born citizens. And if they had understood it that way, nothing would have stopped them from writing it that way. Since they didn't, doesn't that suggest that maybe they didn't have your definition in mind after all?

So these are two cases where the explicit usage of the phrase in the latter, and the implicity understanding of it in the former, seem to fit well the understanding of Vattel that I'm suggesting (natural-born in 212 and natural [when born] in 215 are both about the same category), but I don't see how you reconcile it if you think that they would have instead had your definition in mind.

Why is it ...

... that you expect me to answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine? Just a disrespectful person? Don't want to "go there" because you (and I) know what your answer must be?

My question: Do you have ANY evidence that the SPECIFIC TERM "natural-born citizen" is ANYTHING OTHER THAN born on the soil to two citizen parents?

And here's another question for you: the year is 1787; the Constitution reads that Representatives must be a CITIZEN for 7 years and an INHABITANT of their state, Senators must be a CITIZEN for 9 years and an INHABITANT of their state, but the President must be (a) a RESIDENT for 14 years and (b) a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN ... so .... why did they use those different terms for those different offices? Just some of the most brilliant men in human history had a collective brain fart? Why did they use different terminology for the President? And what do those different terms mean?

Now, even though you have showed me disrespect by repeatedly refusing to answer my question, I will answer yours, anyway.

Yes, my position hinges on "those words EXACTLY" because "those words EXACTLY" are what appear in the Constitution, and not other words.

Your reference to section 215 of Vattel is not on point. Section 212 is the only place he uses the term we are discussing.

Your use of the word "naturally" in 215 is akin to "of course" ... as in, "the child, of course, becomes a citizen." But, as you know (but do not want to admit), "citizen" <> "natural-born citizen."

If an American citizen man in 1787 were to marry a British subject woman, their child would be American by your reading. But it does not follow that said child would be deemed a "natural-born citizen," since that particular term is only used within the context of BOTH parents being citizens.

Such a child could grow up to be Senator, but not President, because "citizen at birth" is not the same concept as "citizen at birth AND having no other allegiance."

I'm not familiar with the example about the candidate with the French father, but if you expect anyone to place credibility in that argument by appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, you are sorely mistaken. Lincoln was a wanna-be dictator. Nothing more. He had zero interest in following any law he did not like.

Yes, the Naturalization Act of 1790 is interesting, but that was repealed and replaced just 5 years later and the language was changed. So, it is a mystery that I have not investigated.

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/nat...

So, I have given you the respect of answering your questions, even though you might disagree with my answers. However, I have asked you a question numerous times, and you have ignored numerous times, but I will try one last time.

My question: Do you have ANY evidence that the SPECIFIC TERM "natural-born citizen" is ANYTHING OTHER THAN born on the soil to two citizen parents?

And by the way, I'd like to know your response to the question above about why the founders used citizen and natural-born citizen for different offices.

Remember: silence is acquiescence. If you fail to answer, I can assume your answer. ;-)