Prof. Rob Natelson: The Original Constitution 2014 Third Edition

Prof. Rob Natelson:

The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

2014 Third Edition

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 18, 2015 at 8:18 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html

<<>>

Prof. Natelson's 3rd edition of his book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, was published in 2014, and has been advertised on his Independence Institute blog since December 26, 2014. He did not add anything to the text of the 2nd Edition published in 2011 about "born" in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, but he did add footnote #25 about Emer de Vattel and how Vattel "clarified" what he meant when he wrote The Laws of Nations:

>> "...Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers."

I wonder.

Does Prof. Natelson intend to imply that U.S. born children followed:

_ONLY the status of the father? (implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship)
_ONLY the status of the mother? (implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship)

Or, is it possible???

_ONLY the status of BOTH father AND mother? (implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship)

On page 147 of the 3rd edition is what Article II section 1 clause 5 "...actually said and meant":

"The Constitution imposed certain qualifications on the President. The Constitution implied, although it did not state explicitly until adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, that the same qualifications applied to the Vice President. Both had to be at least 35 years old, which was a significant requirement in an age in which even people who survived childhood often did not live beyond their 50s. The idea was to better assure a certain amount of maturity and wisdom. Also, both had to have resided within the country for the previous fourteen years.

"Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the founders meant by the phrase "natural-born citizen" because they adapted it from the English legal term, "natural born subject," which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council(25). Essentially, a natural-born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person's parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.

"These birth and residence requirements were designed better to assure that these officers were truly sympathetic to those they were to govern, and to guard against the risk that they might be sympathetic to a foreign power(26).

"There was no constitutional requirement that a President or Vice President be male. The pronoun "he" used throughout the Constitution was generic(27)."

__________
"(25)Since the publication of the first edition, several readers have contacted me to argue that "natural born" should be defined as Emer Vattel defined it in his international law treatise. Invariably their argument is driven by hope that Vattel's definition, if applied, would disqualify from the presidency some politician they dislike.

"The Constitution's meaning does not, however, depend on one's political hopes. The document generally employed domestic legal terms according to English usage. As Vattel acknowledged, the English standard for "natural born" varied from the international standard with respect to children born within the country; as to children born outside the country, the rules were the same. (Although at one point in his book Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, that's what the Constitution "...actually said and meant."

Maybe adducing John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” will help the good professor clarify Emer de Vattel's articulation of his own (Prof. Natelson's) “original genesis original intent” about “parents” and “father” in a future edition of his book?

I say “good professor” because, after reading Prof. Natelson's Independence Institute (i2i) blog, and listening to him speak about Article V and the “convention of states to propose amendments,” I really like him. He's a very nice guy. At this YouTube link Prof. Natelson speaks fluent Latin with his daughter Sarah about the Constitution (only 7 minutes):

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpf2s0RjZ5s

Here are some John Jay and Fourteenth Amendment questions for Prof. Natelson:

Question 1:
Does the good professor think that the founder and New York ratifier, who underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his good friend General Washington, did not know what his original genesis original intent meaning of "born" was in 1787?

Question 2:
Does the good professor think that Jay meant anything other than the obvious about "born" to U.S. citizen married parents?

Just as "born" implies the necessity of two persons uniting to produce a child so also does the union of "born" and "Citizen" imply the necessity of the union of two U.S. citizen parents by marriage to produce a singular U.S. citizen.

_ONLY by birth a singular U.S. citizen
_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil
_ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

Question 3:
Does the good professor think and intend to imply that Jay meant “EITHER/OR”:

_EITHER singular U.S. citizenship—OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
_EITHER U.S. soil—OR foreign soil?
_EITHER two—OR one—OR zero—U.S. citizen married parents?

The "zero" U.S. citizen parents scenario is only applicable since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court “opinion” erroneously interpreted the word "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens...."

Question 4:
Does the good professor really think and intend to imply that "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to be interpreted to mean that a child "born" on U.S. soil to only one OR zero U.S. citizen parents or "born" on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parent was to be "...eligible to the Office of President” from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS?

The 1790 Naturalization Act, which designated a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents as a “natural born Citizen,” and the 1795 Naturalization Act, which corrected the 1790 error and designated a child born on foreign soil as simply a “citizen,” both naturalization acts reference two parents who are both U.S. “citizens,” implying two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child was born on foreign soil. Since 1795, all subsequent immigration and naturalization statutes designate children born on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parents as a “citizen” of the United States and never a “natural born Citizen.”

Since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court opined that a child born on U.S. soil to “zero” U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen, a “zero” U.S. citizen parents child is said by “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”

Question 5:
Does the good professor really agree with the reinterpretation by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language, that “All persons born...” ALSO meant, for POTUS eligibility purposes, born on U.S. soil to ONLY one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

Question 6:
Does the good professor really disagree, for POTUS eligibility purposes, that “All persons born...” in 1868 and from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to PUTUS, could ONLY have been intended to mean ONLY born on U.S. soil to two 1865 Thirteenth Amendment “free” Negroes AND Caucasians, male and female, and imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY by birth on U.S. soil, ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, and if born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent the child would NOT be recognized as a "natural born Citizen" and so NOT "...eligible to the Office of President?"

Question 7:
Does the good professor really think and intend to imply that “born” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to imply that birth on U.S. soil to one, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent would qualify a child as “...eligible to the Office of President?”

Question 8:
Does the good professor think and intend to imply that, in 1868, “...or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...,” thirty years before the erroneous 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court “opinion,” could ONLY mean (1) born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (2) born on U.S. soil to two alien parents, married or not married to each other, does he mean to imply that in 1868 “naturalized” was ONLY a reference to a child who did NOT have two U.S. citizen married parents, and does he also mean to imply that “born...are citizens...” in 1868 was a reference to being born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

Prof. Natelson's Independence Institute blog ( http://constitution.i2i.org/ ) does not accept comments, but he does respond to his email which is shown on his “Contact Rob Natelson” page. He has always responded to me, although, since he is a busy man with his Article V speeches and writings in conjunction with ConventionOfStates.com and others, and since I'm just a guy in El Paso, Texas who does not have a lot of letters after my name and so I cannot post on Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*, his responses, although they have been friendly, they have been short, very, very, very short.

* SSRN ( http://www.ssrn.com/en/ )

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )