On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library.
Some of the records of that Library are of particular interest when considering the influence of the works of Emmerich de Vattel on our Founding Fathers.
Why does this matter? Because of how Vattel defined explained the Natural Law definition of a term that our Founders wrote into our Constitution, and the implications to Barack Hussein Obama.
From Article II Section 1:
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 Vattel:
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
There is good reason to believe that Vattel’s explanation of the definition of “natural born citizen” played a central role in a letter that Founder John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787:
“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.”
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and volume 12 of the English House of Commons Debates.
The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined.
A few news stories recently have made much ado about how large the library fine would be in today’s dollars. But those same stories have neglected the importance of which books Washington checked out.
Again, it is important that we understand the relationship between President George Washington, first Chief Justice John Jay, the works of Vattel, and the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court held its first session on Feb. 1, 1790, in New York City. The New York Society Library charging ledger provides a record of the books borrowed by Chief Justice John Jay, including:
Literature
. The works of Jonathan Swift; “Don Quixote”, Voltaire’s, “Candidus, or “All For the Best,” as the volume is noted in the ledger; “The Fair Syrian, a novel”; Frances Burney’s, “Cecilia, or Memoirs of an Heiress”; “Arabian Nights Entertainments, consisting of one thousand and one stories, related by the Sultaness of the Indies” and John Aubrey’s “Miscellanies,” a collection of stories on ghosts and dreams.
History
. Plutarch’s, “Lives”; “Lives of the Admirals, and other Eminent British Seamen”; “The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada”; “The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, from a British Province to an Independent State”; and “An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major-General Israel Putnam.”
Travel
. Captain James Cook’s, “A Voyage towards the South Pole, and Round the World”; “A Tour through Sicily and Malta”; “Travels into Muscovy, Persia, and Paris of the East-Indies, containing an accurate description of whatever is most remarkable in those countries”; “A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1766-1769,” by the Comte Louis Antoine de Bougainville; “A General Description of China, containing the topography of the fifteen provinces which compose this vast empire”; “Travels in Spain”; “Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768-1773″; and “Travels in North America in the Years 1780-1782″, by the Marquis Francois Jean de Chastellux.
Science
. Comte de Buffon’s “Natural History”; “Chambers’, Cyclopaedia, or General Dictionary of Arts and Sciences”; and “Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.”
Chief Justice Jay must have had his own collection of law books, for few of the books borrowed by him from the New York Society Library are law-related.
As that author concluded, there is little doubt that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had his own collection of law books. And since John Jay wrote to George Washington on multiple occasions, sometimes referencing Vattel, I think there is little doubt that John Jay’s library included the works of Vattel. Here is an excerpt from one of Jay’s letters to Washington… this one being from 28 August 1790:
… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this …
(That URL link may not preserve the search results, so just do a search yourself on the bolded text).
Other references by the Founders to Vattel can be found here.
Now George Washington, having a background as a military General, not an attorney, did not have a copy of Vattel’s works in his personal library. At one of his earliest opportunities to check out Vattel’s work, George Washington did so, and apparently kept it in his library permanently.
Our Founders founded this country on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God“.
Vattel was the de facto authority on the “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”.
Now, if John Jay and George Washington had meant for the usage of “natural born citizen” in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to mean something other than how Vattel defined it the Natual Law definition as explained by Vattel, don’t you think they would have explicitly said so?
June 25, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I’m free to believe the truth. And that truth includes the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who said
and that truth includes an 1892 Supreme Court decision that said, “this is a Christian nation“.
You resonded to my suggestion:
That’s because:
June 25, 2010 at 10:43 pm
You really should read this piece by atheist David Harsanyi:
June 27, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Fyi…
Barack Hussein Obama, acting President pro tempore:
Obama knows full well that both houses of Congress open with the pledge and a prayer.
June 27, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Barack Obama in Kenya supporting Communist, Sharia-supporting Raila Odinga in Kenya:
August 18, 2010 at 11:22 am
[...] George Washington, John Jay, and Vattel’s Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Hawaii Sent Two Certificates to Congress, Won’t Send the ThirdObama’s War on Fox News Becomes a QuagmireObama and CorzineHawaii Ponders Legislation To Ignore Birther Wing-nuts [...]
September 6, 2010 at 3:50 pm
That’s one problem with the internet: Information overload. What’s true and what isn’t? There is so much damn spin on the ‘net about what a “natural born citizen” is it makes my eyes glaze over. Did the 14th Amendment change the definition and if so what did it do? I wish to God someone would decide definitively whether Obama is really a natural born citizen or not.
September 6, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Gary,
Thank you for your comment. The 14th Amendment did not change the definition of “natural born citizen”. The 14th Amendment was ratified on 7/9/1868. After that point, the 14th Amendment was considered part of the Constitution. It is a fact that the 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”.
And it is a fact that two different U.S. Supreme Court decisions that came after the ratification of the 14th Amendment said that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen”. So for anyone to just assume that a person born a citizen under the 14th Amendment is automatically a “natural born citizen” is to willfully overlook the doubts that the Supreme Court itself acknowledged:
The Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment does not contradict or change the definition of natural born citizen as defined by Natural Law and explained by Vattel.
For more, see Just the Facts, Ed, and follow the links from that post to more info.
September 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
October 13, 2010 at 10:34 am
Please see this excellent research done by Bridgette at We The People Of The United States (WTPOTUS):
Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800′s
November 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm
The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”
January 7, 2011 at 2:40 pm
[...] 11) Do you know that even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, Obama does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”? [...]
January 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm
[...] Source: [...]
April 6, 2011 at 1:38 am
[...] George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” [...]
April 12, 2011 at 8:21 am
[...] Step 2 is reacting to the outcome of that verification… If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then he is a usurper because he does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”. George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” [...]
April 12, 2011 at 8:53 am
[...] George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Was Obama a Committed Marxist in College?US [...]
April 12, 2011 at 6:35 pm
[...] Two additional updates: George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” [...]
April 27, 2011 at 10:04 am
[...] under seal, then we can put issue #1 behind us (Trust, but Verify), and move on to issue #2 (“Natural” born [...]
June 23, 2011 at 10:34 am
Leo and Mario agree that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, set in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and which to this day has never been changed, is that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother.
Mario believes (but Leo does not) that birth location can also be an equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation. That difference of opinion is relevant when discussion someone such as John McCain, but not someone such as Barack Obama.
Barack Obama does not meet the Supreme Court definition of “natural born citizen”.
What to do now? As your Representative and Senators to support and defend the Constitution… including Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. It is their responsibility to handle the situation when a President or Vice-President fails to qualify.
June 26, 2011 at 8:28 pm
[...] George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” [...]