In the “Law of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel, he defines in Chapter 19 the concept of “natural-born citizenship” as well as citizenship in general. Natural-born citizenship is, of course, the constitutional requirement to be eligible to be president of the US. The chapter can be viewed below. The most simple, basic definition is on the second page. That is, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Vattel also discusses a few possible exceptions to the rule, for example, those children born to citizen parents serving their country abroad. For example, those in the foreign service or military, but not others who have settled in a foreign land.
This is the only known definition of “natural-born citizen”. Vattel was a philosopher of natural law. Natural law in general and Vattel in particular was known to the Framers of the Constitution and had great influence on the Framers of the Constitution. So, it is believed that this is the definition that corresponds to the Framers’ original intent.
Why some want to obscure the original definition
A person may ask why so many people say that any born citizen is qualified to become president. The answer is that many very powerful, wealthy people today have a globalist financial or ideological agenda that causes them to desire a president who has an internationalist outlook and only superficial roots in America. However, globalization dilutes the sovereignty of American citizens and our control over our own Government. Decisions will be made by globalist organizations, rather than by our own elected representatives.
For one example, see the Covid pandemic response, which was largely regulated by the unelected, bureaucratic agency, the World Health Organization (WHO).
Obama is another prime example. He was not eligible for the presidency, because his father was not an American citizen, but he was elected anyway. Obama’s father was in the US on a student visa. When Obama was a candidate, he declared himself to be an “international citizen” at a rally in Berlin. The touted his non-American, international credentials, proclaiming that his father was a goatherder in Kenya and his grandfather was a cook for the British. The main theme of his talk was political globalization. It was a campaign speech for the benefit of globalists in a foreign land.
Those with a globalist agenda want more such people to be able to become president, whose ancestry is not much rooted in our Country, but more concerned about erasing the boundaries between all countries, which will me more rule from unelected international organizations. They want to change the meaning of our Constitution by the will of international elites, rather than by a vote of our elected representatives for an amendment to the Constitution.
The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.
This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt.
Simply stated, I believe the Framers intended for both parents to be 100% American at birth and the child should be born in the US. There are some additional details to be addressed for certain situations, but that is the basic idea. For over 200 years there was no controversy about this requirement. The controversy arose only in recent years when persons with very questionable qualifications began to become candidates.
However, legally, it does not matter what I believe or what any other non-expert, non-authority believes. I would like to see the states and courts work out what enforcement should be, according to the Constitution and the original intent. Let them do their duty and commit what they decide to law. That would start the process.
Today, there is a large constituency of people who corrupt the original meaning of the term, because they want to promote the internationalization of America or for whatever ideological or financial reason. Then, most of the population has not researched the issue and is just not well informed about the original meaning of the term. Many of them have been influenced by the media, which generally supports the abrogation of the constitutional requirement via manipulation of public opinion rather than using the legal system.
The term comes from the philosophy of natural law, on which our Constitution is based. To understand the meaning of the term and the Framers’ original intent, one should look at how it was used in the literature about natural law.
Article II, Section 1 (excerpt)
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.
There are several ways that a legal definition of the term could be obtained.
The clearest and most straightforward way would be to amend the Constitution to better define the term, but at this time it is unlikely to pass Congress.
Congress could also pass a law outlining the requirements placed on candidates, but this is also highly unlikely at present for political reasons.
The Supreme Court could rule on requirements are for candidates. However, all attempts so far have been rejected by the courts, generally due to the plaintiff not having legal “standing”.
Finally, the States could enact a law requiring candidates to meet their natural-born citizenship requirements to be listed on the state ballot. (See the first reference listed at the bottom by Mario Apuzzo.)
The states enact many laws that determine how different aspects of the Constitution are implemented in their states. For one example, just consider the many gun control laws that have been made by states that delineate the limits of the Second Amendment. The “right to bear arms” is also not defined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, all the states pass numerous laws that constrain your right to bear arms. The courts review these laws for constitutionality. So, why should not the states do the same with the natural-born-citizen qualification for the presidency, delineating the exact qualifications with respect to the Constitution?
With states, we have 50 chances of passing a law that outlines the Framers’ original intent and requires candidates to comply. We don’t have to depend on a politically disinterested Congress alone. This would likely be very controversial and states may enact different versions of how the requirement will be implemented. However, this would just cause it to go quickly to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Then presumably there would then be no question of “standing” if a candidate or political party were to file such a lawsuit. So, this could be a means of obtaining a ruling on a more precise meaning of the term. It should be according to original intent, but also in the modern context of citizenship laws.
Such a procedure would also bypass the personal characteristics of any one candidate. When conservative activists pointed to Obama’s lack of constitutional qualification to be president, they were immediately accused of “racism”. That was a tremendous distraction, but would not be a problem if states pass a general law. The state law would be subject to review by the courts, rather than trying to have a specific candidate disqualified. The focus should be on developing a clear legal standard, which applies equally to every would-be candidate.
Since Nikki Haley is not a natural-born citizen, she is not eligible to be president or vice president as is required by the Constitution. The reason is that her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth. According to her Wiki, her father emigrated to the U.S. in 1969 and she was born in January, 1972. An immigrant has to live at least five years in the country, before they can apply for citizenship. It may well be that Nkki Haley and her immigrant parents are all loyal Americans. I am not trying to demonize them. However, if they are, she should drop out of the race, because it would be unconstitutional for her to become President. She should do her country a favor and announce that she is not constitutionally eligible.
Nikki Haley with her parents from Punjabi, India.
Natural born citizens are those born of American citizens, who have no right to citizenship of another country. That is, they are not dual citizens at birth. Nikki Haley was a citizen of India at birth and could have registered as an Indian citizen, instead of American Citizenship or in addition to American citizenship, because her parents were Indian citizens.
Progressives are the main culprits, who think the Constitution should be interpreted “on the fly”. Progressivism is an ideology akin to communism and Nazism in its utopian, concept of using government to “perfect” society, according to their socialistic ideas. Their internationalist ideology is more important to radical leftist progressives than the Constitution, the law or the rights and welfare of the American people.
Those, who are enemies of the Constitution, want to be able to whittle it down, piece by piece, and mold it to support their anti-American, political agenda. If we allow them to arbitrarily ignore this part of the Constitution, what part can they not ignore?
A definition of “natural born citizen” can be found in a dictionary on progressive controlled website and in Wikipedia, but such sources can be manipulated by political elites, who favor internationalization of America. No one should trust such sources for the correct interpretation and the original intent of the Constitution, which was based on the philosophy of natural law. One should research the writings on natural law to discover what the meaning of the term was to the Framers of the Constitution.
Since the American people are so confused about the original intent of this term in the Constitution, a ruling from the newly conservative Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment is needed to clarify the eligibility requirements for the president and vice-president.
The children of two 100% American citizens, born in the United States, are “natural born citizens”. Citizenship is their natural right, not a privilege granted by the Government via law. Below is my version of Kerchner’s three-legged stool diagram.
Simple Test: If you have to cite a law to prove that someone is a citizen, then he is not a “natural born citizen.” Anyone, who has to cite a law has disqualified their own argument.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to make naturalization laws, according to US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. However, they cannot directly create a natural born citizen. You could change the requirements with an amendment to the Constitution, but it should be clear that was the purpose of the amendment.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not mention and was not intended to change the eligibility requirements for the presidency. If it were true that anyone born a citizen by the 14th Amendment would then be eligible to become president, then it would lead to illogical results, such as people on tourist visas or illegal aliens could give birth to a person who would then be eligible to become president. That could not have been the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. They would roll over in their graves at the thought.
The Founders would have said that natural born citizens are citizens by God’s law or the law of nature and not by the law of the Government.
Dual citizenship did not exist in the early days of the Republic, but it is not consistent with the intent of the Framers in requiring natural-born citizenship for eligibility for the presidency. The Framers were concerned with ensuring the undivided loyalty of the commander-in-chief. Dual citizens have divided loyalty, by definition.
Voters can enforce eligibility
Voters could enforce this requirement, themselves, if they did not vote for candidates they believe are ineligible. Voters have enforced the requirement pretty well for more than 200 years. For the first 92 years there was no controversy. Every elected president was a natural born citizen in the sense defined by Vattel, until there was a controversy in 1881 about Chester Arthur’s eligibility. Then after Chester Arthur It was 128 more years until Obama was inaugurated as president, who definitely was not a natural born citizen as Vattel defined it. Of course, now he have a vice president, Kamal Harris, who is not eligible in the same sense. It seems that every 100 years or so, Americans forget what the requirement is, that his/her parents also have to be Americans.
If only a relatively small fraction of the voters refuse to vote for unqualified posers for the presidency, it will have a devastating impact on ineligible candidates, since elections often turn on a few percent of the vote. It would be great if we can get the definition enforced by law. However, do not depend on our internationalist political elites or courts to decide for you what the term means. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican or independent, you can and should take action, yourself, at the ballot box. Just stop voting for ineligible candidates for president or vice president. If even a few percent of the public vote that way, our political elites would get the message and stop nominating and supporting ineligible candidates.
Quotes from the “Law of Nations” by Emmerich Vattel
The following are quotes from the book “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel. It is not a legal document but provides the concept of “natural born citizen” at the time the Framers wrote the Constitution. Vattel was a prominent Swiss philosopher, who played a major role in developing the philosophy of natural law, on which our Constitution is based. The the entire discussion of this subject by Vattel at the link below:
Ā§ 212. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Ā§ 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? By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights
(Ā§ 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.
Ā§ 216. Children born at sea. As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation
Ā§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Emmerich de Vattel argued that children of citizen parents abroad, — under certain conditions — serving in the military, born on ships or on a state mission should be considered as being born in the jurisdiction of the home country and thus are natural born citizens. However, the children of those, who have resettled in another country, are not natural born citizens, because they have joined another society.
Recent Examples
Nikki Haley is also the daughter of two foreign parents who were in the US on student visas.
Kamala Harris was born of two parents who were in the US on student visas. The Vice presidential candidate is also required to the a natural-born citizen.
Marco Rubio, was born in the U.S. to two Cuban-citizen parents.
The parents of Ted Cruz had resettled in Canada by the time he was born, making it their permanent home. His Cuban father took Canadian citizenship and started a well-logging business in the Canadian oil industry. His mother was an American, who intended to settle permanently in Canada. Ted Cruz had Canadian and possibly Cuban citizenship, he was entitled to claim American citizenship, but that would not make him a natural born American citizen.
Barack Obama had a father from Kenya who was a colonial British citizen when he was born. His father, Barack Obama, Sr. was in the US on a student visa. It does not matter where Barack, Jr. was born. He still is not a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii. Trying to prove he was born elsewhere, seems to have been counter-productive. It reinforces the wrong-headed idea that birth in the US is sufficient. The parents also have to be American.
