Letter to George Washington from John Jay regarding the insertion of the “natural born Citizen” clause into the U.S. Constitution
Okay, okay… we’ll revisit one article in honor of #MockObamaDay, but it’s really about Obama’s NWO-compliant Democrats and Republicans both, making a mockery of the United States Constitution.
If our (corrupt) Congress and courts would only heed reality and align themselves with their duties to uphold the Constitution instead of undermining it to the point of our nation’s destruction… it should be a big part of the solution, eh?
‘Natural Born Citizen for Dummies’ v. Dummy v. the United States of America
July 1, 2011
Constitutionalist activist, Dean Haskins provides a lesson instructing that a “natural born Citizen,” according to the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, is an individual born in United States territory, to parents who are both U.S. Citizens.
Further, he introduces the viewer to the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, which recognized this and thus established binding precedent, the adjudicated recognition of the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution.
Video, “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies,” June 28, 2011
Edit, video also shown at “Of course this means that Barack Hussein Obama II is our U.S. President illegally and spuriously, if Barack Hussein Obama I is indeed his father. And it shows how displaced from legitimacy and reality is our entire United States government at this moment.
“Never before, in the history of the America, have our leaders been so afraid of the rule of law (continues)
There is nothing in the Constitution about parents, and the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW (John Jay was an expert on the common law), and its meaning referred to the place of birth——not to the citizenship of parents, not two citizen parents, not even one citizen parent.
Here is how the term was used in AMERICAN (not Switizerland) at about the time that the Constitution was written:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
(Notice that the above refers only to the PLACE of birth, not to parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.”
And:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And both of those were written by men who were friends with several of the members of the Constitutional Convention.
There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution switched from the common law, which they were very familiar with, since they were mainly lawyers and justices, to Vattel. And in fact Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Ellen, your citations come after the Constitutional convention and they make reference to British law, not to International Law. (Politicians are politicians, whatever their motivations and confusions may have been. It would also be helpful to see the context of the remarks you cite, their simply not being able to stand up to original intent and meaning.)
De facto, this is a matter of International Law and the standard on the topic with which the Constitution’s actual framers were saturated was Vattel’s work. This very clearly states that parents of a “natural born citizen” must be citizens of that nation at the time of the child’s birth, plus being born under national jurisdiction.
Great Britain’s ravenous meaning and intent is the odd man out, here: to declare as many people of other nations subjects as was feasible for them, so they could be controlled and taxed. (And British subjects are a far different category than America’s Sovereign Citizens.)
However, true International Law being the true common law for international concerns (including national allegiance) the common and valid intent here is to be careful of what a “natural born citizen” may be, when one is choosing its commander in chief, not to lust after royal subjects. British common law is the discounted outlier, here.
John Jay, George Washington, and the others knew their International Law and from it they their knew their meaning and intent: both parents and born in the nation’s jurisdiction.
Elections are matters of domestic law. Vattel does not discuss them at all, not at all, and if John Jay was using Vattel in his letter to George Washington, and not the common law that they were both very familiar with, he would have said so.
I clearly remember when I became a naturalized citizen of the USA in March of 1986. After I took the oath to protect and the defend the US government, Federal Judge Nixon addressed each and every one of us. He informed us that we have all the rights of any US citizen except we can never be President of the USA. However, should any of us marry an American and have children for the American, our children would have the legal right to become President of the USA since they would be natural born citizens.
All of these US federal judges know exactly the legality concerning natural born citizen and the video is spot on. However, I imagine there is not a single one of these federal judges who wants to end up “Breitbarted”! (Remember Andrew had planned something big for March 01st, 2012 to expose President O. The previous night, he was out walking his dog and suddenly dropped dead of ….. heart attack? Yeah. Riiiiiiiight! These judges do not want to be Breitbarted! Trust me on that one!)
Re ” However, should any of us marry an American and have children for the American, our children would have the legal right to become President of the USA since they would be natural born citizens. ”
You have a bad memory, or perhaps the judge was wrong. In any case, Meese and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson say that Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that is what the Wong Kim Ark case ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett (which did not say that two citizen parents are required either).
And, if you doubt that the Wong Kim Ark case in fact did say that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, there have been TEN appeals courts, all of which have ruled that the Wong Kim Ark decision actually did say that and none of which said that two citizen parents are required (nor has any US court, and as noted the Minor v. Happersett ruling did not say it either). Here are some of the rulings:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And, by the way, Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes—heart failure due to coronary disease http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75415.html
Ellen, you are missing (or willfully ignoring) two very important facts:
1) Alexander Hamilton’s original draft of the Constitution used this wording:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”.
John Jay was not satisfied with this language and felt that a ‘stronger check’ was needed with regard to the office of President and Commander-In-Chief of the Republic’s Armed forces, and so he drafted a letter to George Washington (dated 25 July 1787), where he said:
“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 Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”.
Of course, we then ended up with the language actually embodied into the document (as adopted 17 September 1787):
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
From this sequence of events and these historical facts there can be no doubt that in the minds of the Framers the terms “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” could not possibly have meant the same thing? If they did Jay’s plea for a “stronger check” and change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” would be meaningless!
2) By your “born in country = natural born citizen”, a pregnant illegal alien woman walks across the border into the US, has her baby on American soil, and not only do you erroneously consider this child a citizen simply on that basis, but you also consider him/her a natural born citizen, qualified to be President?
I’m sorry, but that’s absurd, and so is your logic. And nice try using a bastardized interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case and then citing 12 cases FOLLOWING the 2008 election to support your twisted and convoluted (re)definition of “natural born citizen”?. Can you really be that shallow and naive?
Oh, and by the way, regarding the 14th Amendment and the question of natural born citizen (which was never addressed by it) the ” Father of the 14TH Amendment”, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio confirmed in the House on March 9, 1866 that:
” 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 (PLURAL) NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CONSTITUTION ITSELF, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Truth Seeker, Liberal Ellen is that shallow and naive and may be paid to post liberal bulldung on conservative sites.
Re: “2) By your “born in country = natural born citizen”, a pregnant illegal alien woman walks across the border into the US, has her baby on American soil, and not only do you erroneously consider this child a citizen simply on that basis, but you also consider him/her a natural born citizen, qualified to be President? ”
Answer: That is correct. That falls under the definition of Natural Born Citizen. So, yes, the US-born children of illegal aliens are indeed Natural Born Citizens, and if you do not want one of them to become president, you have the right to vote against her or him.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Still disagree?: well here are some court cases:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
AND there was Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana, which ruled:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
That was appealed once, to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which turned down the appeal, leaving the ruling of the appeals court standing.
And there have been ten appeals court cases, all on the subject of presidential eligibility, and every single one of them said that the US Supreme Court defined the term Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, which did not say what birthers think in any case). And the ten appeals court cases all said that the US Supreme Court had ruled that the term Natural Born Citizen came from the common law (which historical research confirms) and that it means that every child born on US soil with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Re: “From this sequence of events and these historical facts there can be no doubt that in the minds of the Framers the terms “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” could not possibly have meant the same thing…”
Answer: Yes, they meant the same thing. They were synonyms. Congress decided to use the other synonym, the shorter phrase, ‘none but a Natural Born Citizen, instead of “no one who is not born a citizen.”
There is absolutely no articles or letters from the members of the Constitutional Convention that they were using the term “Natural Born” in any way other than the way that they had been using it for decades as lawyers, the common law meaning of the term. And, IF they had intended to change from the common meaning, the common law meaning, to Vattel or Natural Law or whatever, they would have said so—-and they didn’t.
Re Bingham quotation:
Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Re: “John Jay was not satisfied with this language…”
Answer: John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had intended to use some meaning of Natural Born Citizen other than the meaning of Natural Born in the common law, he would have said so, and he didn’t. The COMMON meaning of Natural Born was the meaning in the common law. IF John Jay or the writers of the US Constitution had switched to Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, and who recommended some things that the Constitution did not adopt, such as every country having its own state religion and forcing people to join it), they would have said that they were using Vattel and not the common law—but they didn’t.
Ellen, it was Great Britain’s expansive policy for inducting subjects that they were trying to avoid, here. To say that John Jay didn’t know international law is silly. (And if you can prove he didn’t understand French, please show me – not holding my breath.) This is definitively a matter of international law.
John Jay was an expert in the COMMON LAW. If he was using something other than the common law, such as your idea that Vattel defined International Law—which he didn’t, John Jay would have said so. But John Jay didn’t say so. And, guess what, the Declaration of Independence says “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…” And, duh, if the writers of the US Constitution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens in being eligible to become president, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, and they didn’t.
Finally, we have the evidence of two AMERICAN scholars at the time, both of whom knew the writers of the US Constitution, and both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the way that it was used in the common law:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
As you can see, both of them refer to the place of birth. Neither refers to parents. And Vattel is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers. Surely, if he were the source of the term “Natural Born Citizen” (and not the common law, which is mentioned about twenty times), the writers of the Federalist Papers would have mentioned him. Yes, the writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel. But then they read a lot of other books too. In particular, they read BLACKSTONE, who was even more popular, far more popular than Vattel, and he says that Natural Born refers to the place of birth and includes all the children born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and the children of enemy invaders.
That is why the Heritage Foundation had this in its book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Re: “And if you can prove he didn’t understand French, please show me – not holding my breath.) ”
Maybe he did understand French. IF so, and if he had translated Vattel’s word “indignes” (which was not translated into “Natural Born Citizen” in any English translation until ten years after the Constitution was written) s “Natural Born Citizen”, he would have said: “As Vattel said in French, and I translated.” Or he would have said: “I am using Vattel and not the common law.” But he didn’t say either, and as noted, Vattel recommended several things that the US Constitution did not adopt, such as a state religion.
Correcting typo:
Maybe he did understand French. IF so, and if he had translated Vattel’s French word “indignes” (which was not translated into “Natural Born Citizen” in any English translation until ten years after the Constitution was written) as “Natural Born Citizen”, he would have said: “As Vattel said in French, and I translated.” Or he would have said: “I am using Vattel and not the common law.” But he didn’t say either, and as noted, Vattel recommended several things that the US Constitution did not adopt, such as a state religion.
You’re very good at begging the question, Ellen. As stated, Great Britain had a very inclusive policy for their subjects. It was specifically against that policy that John Jay suggested that the Commander in Chief be a “natural born” Citizen. Citizenship is a matter of international law. British common law is what they, by their clear sentiments did not want creeping into the matter.
Citizenship is a matter of DOMESTIC law, not international law. Every country has the right to decide on the criteria for citizenship. Some base it on the parents, others on the place of birth, none has a criteria that says that both parents and the place of birth determine either simple citizenship or the Natural Born category of citizen. John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, so if he was using the term Natural Born Citizen any differently than in the common law, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO–and he didn’t. The US Supreme Court ruled six to two (one justice did not vote) in the Wong Kim Ark decision that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW and that it refers to the place of birth, and that every child born on US soil (Yes, that includes “Anchor Babies” ) is a Natural Born Citizen—-except for the children of foreign diplomats.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776412.shtml#.UnJyLlOamCl
It will soon be FOUR MONTHS since the posting of August 17, and there have not even been congressional hearings on this subject.
So far TEN months have passed since the posting of August 17, and there have not even been congressional hearings on this subject.