“born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

§ 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.

(emphasis mine)

Section 215 elaborates on section 212:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) 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; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

How relevant is that to understanding our Constitution?
Very relevant.  Again:

This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

The candidate known as Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro) is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.  Why?  Because both he and his father had British citizenship at the time of his birth.  At best, Obama was a dual citizen, not a natural born citizen.  Obama openly admits, on his fight the smears web site, that he had received British citizenship from his father at his birth:

As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

NBC = 1,2,3

NBC (Natural Born Citizen) =
1 – Born in the U.S.
2 – Father was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth
3 – Mother was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth

A natural born citizen is naturally a citizen of 1 and only 1 country. No other country can claim authority or influence over that child based on either birth location or citizenship/subjecthood of the father or mother.

Vattel’s terminology was echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett.

Each word has meaning, and of the following 3 groups:
A) citizen
B) born citizen
C) natural born citizen

B is a subset of A, and
C is a subset of B.

Not all citizens are born citizens. (Everyone agrees on that.)

And not all born citizens are natural born citizens. You can’t just pretend that the word “natural” has no meaning.

Others can be born citizens by statute while not being “natural-born citizens… born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

Anyone born a U.S. citizen, but also born a citizen or subject of another country (like Cruz, who was born with Canadian citizenship, and Obama, whose 2008 campaign web site admitted that he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject) is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

  1. Ted says:

    SCOTUS has now prevented itself from acknowleding the question whether Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” (as distinguished from “citizen”) three times and counting: First before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors. Other cases on the same question are at, or are heading to, SCOTUS. Whether SCOTUS ultimately decides if Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” only after the Electors vote, only after Congress acts on the Electors’ vote, prior to Obama’s inauguration, or only after Obama’s inauguration, SCOTUS will have to decide — or the people and/or the military will. The issue no longer is Obama. The issue is SCOTUS.

  2. tarmac says:

    Hey, this is actually a reply to your comment on TD Blog, since TD usually deletes posts she doesn’t agree with if she can’t think of a retort. You mentioned Hillary being ineligible to be SoS because of the salary increase for that position.

    This has happened before, and every time the Senate simply lowers the SoS salary for the incoming secretary to what it was before. Clinton and Nixon both did it for their appointees. Congress did it again a few days ago. Read the news.

  3. tarmac,

    Thanks for your comment. Someone on TD’s blog left a similar response. It’s an interesting question about whether or not the lowering of the salary (presumably back to its former level) solves the Constitutional issue. (Because the fact remains that the salary was increased, but was later decreased before the Senator took office). It’s a “letter of the law” vs. “spirit of the law” question.

    In regards to your saying, “Read the news”, keep in mind that I am not a full-time blogger or paid professional journalist. I have a life outside of this blog (a very busy one, in fact) and please forgive me when I miss a news story. I’m human.

  4. Pingback: Usurper, Not Virgin « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  5. Pingback: Profiles in Courage « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  6. Pingback: Second Berg Lawsuit Shifts the Burden of Proof to Soetoro (a.k.a. Obama) « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  7. Pingback: Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  8. Pingback: Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  9. Pingback: Trust, But Verify « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  10. Pingback: Malpractice of the Legislative and Executive Branches Requires Judicial Branch Review « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  11. Pingback: NBC = 1,2,3 « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  12. Pingback: POTUS & The I-9 Form « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  13. Pingback: What Ed Morrissey Gets Wrong When Attacking “Birthers” « We the People of the United States

  14. Assuming that George Washington read the books he checked out, here is proof that he read The Law of Nations.

  15. Pingback: George Washington, John Jay, and Vattel’s Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  16. Pingback: Obama’s Eligibility: It’s a Matter of Faith « We the People of the United States

  17. Pingback: George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” | Socialism is not the Answer

  18. Pingback: Birthers want proof that Romney is eligible - Page 8 - City-Data Forum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s