What Is A Natural Born Citizen?

There were three volumes of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations at The Philadelphia/Constitutional Convention 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.

This is how those who created The Constitution understood citizenship the reason Natural Born Citizen is not defined in The Constitution is because it was commonly understood at the time. We must go back to the meaning of words and phrases as they meant at the time the document/law was created and not use our modern understanding or lack there of, of terms in 1787.

As you can see for yourself Barrack Hussein Obama is not Natural Born Citizen and therefor does not meet the Constitutional requirement to be President. Also note, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible to be President and therefor not eligible to be Vice President

I highly recommend listening to my educational podcasts on the founding of this great nation at The Patriot’s Pub, it is free, it is only the facts & we go through The Philadelphia Convention debates day by day using James Madison’s notes, who was the official recorder.

6 Responses

  1. There is absolutely no proof that the writers of the US Constitution got their definition from Vattel, who recommended such things as every country having its own state religion, and who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers. Instead, we got the definition from the common law, which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers.

    “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.]

    • The Founders tossed out England and Heritage is wrong, not the 1st time on the Constitution. The only sovereign in England at the time was the king, there were no “citizens” they were subjects.

      Sorry about 3 volumes of the law of nations in the Constitutional Convention. The federalist papers are not a complete conversation of The Constitutional Convention, they were ppl selling the ratification in news papers nothing more. They were actually clear in The Convention they did not want the executive’s parents to be immigrants who might have allegiance to another Country.

      We know is father was not a U.S. Citizen, anyonje who reads Madison’s notes on The Constitutional Convention will learn the decisions made at The Convention; where The Constitution was created. Natural Born is not native born & requires both parents be citizens which is what they decided. If you do not like it Amend The Constitution

  2. By your definition, George Romney, born in Mexico and living there for the first five years of his life, was not a natural born citizen. But you are wrong. At the time of birth of Barack Obama, these laws were in place:

    Birth abroad to one United States citizen

    For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:
    1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
    2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
    3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
    4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

    Although he was born in Hawaii, he could have been born anywhere in the world his mother happened to be.

    • Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, which makes it simple. That was the first and the one not disputed criterion of Natural Born status. Not every citizen can be president. Only the Natural Born ones can. So what distinguishes a Natural Born one from an ordinary citizen?

      The usual answer, with which I agree by the way, is that every citizen who is not naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen. But there are some who hold that subsequent legislation cannot change the Natural Born part of a citizen.

      Thus:

      “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.]

      My point was not to argue against the reasonable conclusion that US citizens born abroad are ALSO natural born citizens. It was merely to show that under the original criterion, the one that has no shred of doubt about it, the place of birth, Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

      Under the second of the two criteria listed below, persons born outside the USA to US parents are also eligible:

      “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

      But Obama, having been born in the USA (and Jindal and Rubio too, of course) is certainly eligible.

      • Blacks law dictionary has no bearing on our Constitution.

        BTW let me know when obama supplies proof that has not been proven to be a forgery, twice now. regardless he is not a natural born citizen and Rubio/Jindal were born of 2 immigrants under the misinterpretation of thee 14th amendment that makes them native born, not natural born

    • George Romney is not a natural born citizen pay attention to your own reference “a person is a U.S. citizen” not natural born. there is naturalized citizen, native born citizen and natural born citizen

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

%d bloggers like this: