Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, both past Solicitors General for the United States government, have written this article on Article II’s provision that a president must be a natural-born citizen. Apparently they were moved to write about this subject because U.S. Senator Ted Cruz is running for President and he was born in Canada. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.
Unfortunately these gentlemen fail to mention Emer Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” which preceded the Constitution by almost thirty years (first published in 1758). This magnificent three volume set of books on international law was widely read by our founding fathers as referenced in their personal papers (THIS IS ORIGINAL INTENT!!) and clearly defines, in Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that a natural born citizen is one born to citizen parents – PLURAL. In this section, Vattel also notes importance of how the child follows the citizenship of his father – he uses three different sentences for special emphasis. Read it for yourself at: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
§ 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.
TOTAL male dominance in 1776-1787.
ALLEGIANCE chain —
4 July 1776 LOYAL Fathers to the DOI and their kids.
Later naturalized Fathers (taking the oath of ALLEGIANCE to the USA Constitution) and their kids [Most USA citizens].
Thus – kid at birth ALLEGIANCE to the USA regime — regardless of physical place of birth —
Place of birth means ZERO.
Difficult only for confused ex-Solicitor Generals and SCOTUS hacks — and the armies of MORONS regarding the kids being born having ILLEGAL FOREIGN INVADER mothers in the USA — with FOREIGN fathers in the USA or elsewhere.
See Also 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — subject to the jurisdiction thereof === ALLEGIANCE jurisdiction.
Harvard Law School is all in on this aka Obama BS
I trust that Harvard Law School will reap its just reward.
To Jeff Becker – see sections 215-217 of the source you just quoted.
They didn’t cite Vattel because only birthers think Vattel is determinative.
Jim, EXACTLY: § 215: “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers…” which corresponds with what he says in § 212: “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.”
So place of birth doesn’t matter as long as the father is a citizen which is why I agree that John McCain is a nbc and was thus qualified for the presidential office. What forsight in that Vattel is describing Obama’s situation since he is claimed to be born in country (USA) of a foreign (Kenyan) father.
In summary, regardless of what the Supreme Court or Soliciters General say, natural born citizenship is the citizenship of the country of the father. For those who think this sounds chauvinist, remember that this just mirrors biology as it is now known that in humans, the male DNA determines gender of offspring.
Bob, I am not a “birther.” I am an “originalist.” The Law of Nations predated the Constitution by almost thirty years and was widely and enthusiastically studied by our founders.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/258303841/USDC-TXSD-B-14-254-Motion-to-Intervene-for-the-Purpose-of-Filing-an-Original-Proceeding-Special-Writ-of-Mandamus-to-USCA-5C
What a treatise published 30 years before the founding had to say i interesting but not authoritative. And even if it were, it would not preclude Congress from adding to the definition of “natural born citizen.” And even if Congress cannot, the Constitution itself surely can. Thus, to the extent natural born citizen once ran through the father, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause requires now that it also run through a citizen mother. Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. As for Obama, the birthright clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which overruled Dred Scott, plainly says that anyone born in the US (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) — which includes Hawaii — is a born citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment has amended Article II as well as overruling Dred Scott.
The interesting question, constitutionally speaking, deals with illegitimate children of citizen fathers born abroad. Federal law treats them differently, requiring paternal recognition. Not for citizen mothers, however. Are these children born citizens? As the law stands, perhaps not. I suspect the Supreme Court will soon strike down that disparate treatment. It was poised to do so a couple of years ago, but wound up with an equally divided court (Kagan not sitting). When Kagan’s vote is added, I think the Court will rule that these illegitimate children are born citizens just as those of citizen mothers are.
Mark, The 14th Amendment certainly DID NOT amend Article II. Article II clearly indicates two classes of citizens and sets a time limit on the non-natural born type with regards to presidential eligibility. “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;” So the Framers recognized type 1 as “natural born” and type 2 as regular Citizen.
Amendment XIV: “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.” This IS NOT a definition of the type 1 natural born citizen. It clearly says “are citizens,” and as everyone knows was put there to make citizens of the newly freed slaves. Note that Indians are excluded from this classification because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but rather their own tribal nations. For the very same reason, this should not apply to so-called “anchor babies” born here of two foreign parents as they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country, not ours.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” = for BOTH freed slaves AND legal immigrants.
Another former Solicitor General, Ted Olson, and noted Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe wrote a similar analysis in 2008 regarding John McCain’s eligibility (see footnote 17 of the Clement-Kalyal article).
In response to the Olson-Tribe letter, Gabriel Chin wrote a Michigan Law Review Article (Vol 107, Number 1, 2008), ‘Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship’ Chin’s article argues that McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not make him a natural born citizen.
14th Amendment’s definition of citizen as someone born in the United State does not apply to the Canal Zone or other incorporated territories. This is the key issue in the American Samoa citizenship case.
Congress may (and has) by statute defined certain persons born outside the United States as natural born. This is primarily based on a parent being a US citizen who has demonstrated allegiance to the United State through living in the United States, at least some of which is post adolescence. But this varies depending on where the birth occurred. When John McCain was born, it did not apply to births in the Panama Canal Zone. Had McCain been born 11 months later, he would have been a citizen at birth, since Congress deliberately changed the law, because persons born under similar circumstances were not US citizens from birth. Or if he had been born in Panama, he would have been a US citizen at birth by virtue of being born of US citizen parents in a foreign country. Chin makes a reasonable argument that persons may not be retroactively re-born as natural born citizens.
The essence of Chin’s article was that the Olson-Tribe letter, while penned by a former solicitor general and an imminent legal scholar, was superficial in its understanding of US citizenship law.
So it is interesting that two former solicitor generals (Kalyal was an acting solicitor general after Elena Kagan was appointed to the Supreme Court), have included the Canal Zone as being equivalent to birth in Canada, when all they have in common is that they both start with “Can”.
Jim, Panama Canal Zone was never a US Territory. It was always the property of the Republic of Panama and just occupied by us under a lend-lease agreement for a specified amount of gold coin – clearly stated in both the treaty signed by Teddy Roosevelt and foolishly ended by Jimmy Carter. John McCain’s father was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth so it does not matter where in the world he was born or even that his father was in the military service.
Also, you say that Congress changed a citizenship law, but I am unclear as to what you are referring. Congress cannot alter the Constitution by passing a law which changes the definitions of its words, particularly that of natural born citizen. Again, all citizens born of American citizen fathers are natural born citizens and are thus citizens of the US at birth, but not all citizens of the US are natural born.
Even more Bush v. Gore CRISIS stuff might happen if a Prez candidate was NOT a NBC but got elected by the 12th Amdt gerrymander math stuff.
BUT see 20th Amdt, Sec. 3 —
*or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify*
to be determined in a Federal Court — with CRISIS appeals to SCOTUS.
OLDE stuff – Quo Warranto cases – i.e. qualification cases – now one more Civil Action in the USA and most State regimes.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
McCain, Obama, McCain, Obama.
Swap the skin colors and the party affiliations and the ship of this “issue” will capsize from the weight of birthers lurching from starboard to port.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty
We must continue to accept the traditional definition of “natural born citizen.” What was overlooked in the Article was the fear by the Founding Fathers that royalty from abroad might migrate to the United States, and with their wealth and influence, experience one of their offspring to becoming President of the United States who might have natural feelings and loyalty for his parents natural cultures.
The Founding Fathers wanted to form a new nation – not just a break off from a foreign power. The Natural Born Citizen mandate for the President was to insure that only a “true” American would serve in that office and ever lead our forces in war. Human nature, has a tendency to follow its conscience, and they did not want a President who would cave in to any pull on the heart strings of person serving as the President.
We, may never know the truth about whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen or not. There are alot of unanswered questions. But we have come the closest to such happening with his election in 2008 and re-election in 2012. With Obama, there was no evidence that his heart strings were tied to Kenya. But what would happen if someone related to Putin were to become President? Would the situation then turn ugly?
From now on, let us vet all candidates, and make sure we know if they are a natural born citizen before they begin to seek the office. We will all sleep better at night if we have this assurance.
Do ANY of the State Constitutions have a NBC mention – esp. for State Governors — as CIC of any State military forces ???
Court: Kings Civil Supreme
Index Number: 021948/2012
Case Name: STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Case Type: Special Proceedings
Track: Standard
Appearance Information:
Appearance
Date
Time
On For
Appearance
Outcome
Justice /
Part
Comments
Motion
Seq
03/26/2015 Supreme Trial NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
NON-JURY TRIAL READINESS PART
1:14-cv-00254 State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al
Andrew S. Hanen, presiding
Date filed: 12/03/2014
Date of last filing: 03/13/2015
Deadlines/Hearings
Doc.
No. Deadline/Hearing Event
Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
41
Brief Deadline 01/05/2015 01/07/2015
96
Amended Pleadings Deadline 01/15/2015 01/23/2015
96
Reply Deadline 01/15/2015 01/30/2015
96
Response Deadline 01/15/2015 01/30/2015
150
Response Deadline 02/23/2015 03/03/2015
150
Motion Docket Date 02/23/2015 03/16/2015
191
Motion Hearing 03/09/2015 03/19/2015
at 01:30 PM
183
Motion Docket Date 03/05/2015 03/26/2015
4
Initial Conference 12/04/2014 03/31/2015
at 01:30 PM
199
Motion Docket Date 03/13/2015 04/03/2015
106
Release of Transcript Restrict 01/20/2015 04/20/2015
184
Release of Transcript Restrict 03/06/2015 06/04/2015
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/13/3633377/fate-nearly-5-million-immigrants-rests-one-conservative-courts-america/
The Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated US territory. The US citizenship law was changed in 1937 to make those born in the Panama Canal Zone to US citizen parents. It was made retroactive to 1903. Please read the Chin article.
A natural-born citizen is a citizen by the nature of their birth at the time of their birth. Congress has the authority to determine who is a natural-born citizen, subject to the 14th Amendment (including the equal protection clause).
And in reality, Congress is the only one who can enforce Article 2, when they count the electoral votes.
Beg to differ.
The gerrymander Congress hacks have ZERO judicial power to rule on the qualifications of a Prez or VP.
12th Amdt – ONLY count the Electoral College votes.
The hacks have judicial power for internal purge stuff and impeachments – due to Brit history reasons.
—
NO NBC for INVADERS – peacetime or WARtime — see the Japanese Empire occupation of various USA islands during WW II — until blown to Hell by the counter-attacking USA Armed Forces.
Any Japanese father kids (i.e. via rape) were NOT USA citizens.
NO NBC for accident folks — possible shipwrecks and planewrecks of pregnant foreign women — moron pregnant foreign folks lost near USA land borders.
Another point –
Does any State make it a major felony for an Electoral College person to vote for a person who is NOT qualified to be a Prez or VP ???
— thus giving rise to possible court cases.
14th Amend applies only to slaves and their children — no anchor babies.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/14/lawyers-say-canadian-born-cruz-eligible-to-run-for-president/
If NBC applies to only the father then why does this story talk about the mother being used for Cruz to run for president.
Another point – did the gerrymander Congress naturalize the ex-slaves (who had been citizens/subjects of some foreign nation in Africa or elsewhere) before the 14th Amdt was ratified in 1868 ???
Some of the older slaves had been kidnapped and enslaved before the 1808 stuff in Art. I, Sec. 9.
Other slaves were illegally imported after 1808 into the slave States/territories.
Other kids were born slaves due to the EVIL slave state laws before and after 4 July 1776.
Reminder – The surviving American Indian tribe members were naturalized in 1924 and 1940 USA laws.
IE – lots of CHAOS stuff possible due to the MORONS in Congress — NOT cleaning stuff up.
I.E. STATUS stuff is a very big matter — citizen or non-citizen, resident or non-resident, Elector or non-Elector, etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Will the SCOTUS appointed robot party hacks clean up the mess any time soon ???
How many times have such SCOTUS hacks OVER-RULED an earlier JUNK opinion ???
Thus – what is the citizenship status of EVERY person in the U.S.A. ??? ONLY SCOTUS knows for sure ???
David, Those are the same two Soliciters General who wrote the article that this BAT post is about. Just because two people write an article together does not mean it should be used over and over again to alter the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The fact is that the Law of Nations predates the Constitution by 29 years and is clearly what the Framers were studying and using as a reference when they wrote that document. It is prima facie evidence of the proper definition of natural born citizen. Vattel points to the citizenship of the father three times. He NEVER mentions the mother except by inferring her at the beginning of § 212 by using the word “parents” in the plural.
http://www.ducksters.com/history/american_revolution/patriots_and_loyalists.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLL1QMU5AG0
http://vermonthistory.org/journal/70/vt703_402.pdf
Demo Rep, “counting” includes deciding which votes to count.
Jeff Becker, may females be citizens?
“that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”
Since it uses the masculine pronoun ‘his’ to refer to the children, then “each citizen” is necessarily restricted to being male.
since he is the son of a none citizen father, non-nbc Obama does not have standing to challenge an injunction of his unconstitutional amnesty executive action in the USCA-Fifth Circuit.
TO Justice Riley — counting votes can become a judicial matter — See of course the now infamous Bush v. Gore 2000 — the TOTAL failure in the FL regime to have a definition of a LEGAL vote. — esp. with the now dead punchcard ballots.
See the HAVA sentence written esp. for the FL regime MORONS — i.e. each moron State must have definitions of LEGAL votes — i.e. YES or NO stuff.
—
As to NBC – ALLEGIANCE stuff – see the USA and British cases regarding land ownership due to the 1783 and 1795 USA-Brit treaties up to about 1835 — inheritance stuff.
Early on — ONLY citizens/subjects in a regime could own land in such regime — i.e. NO foreign landowners.
i.e. cases about Brits owning land in the USA —
USA folks owning land in Great Britain.