Serendipity: 1790 & 1795 Naturalization Acts

1790-1795 Naturalization Act Serendipity

or

From Error in 1790 to Clarity in 1795 and 2017

or

A Compass – A Perfect Circle – John Jay – nbC

I also posted this on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog:

>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Hi Mario...again,

I wanted to clarify a couple of things in my previous comment here on your blog (April 14, 2017 at 12:46 AM) about Larry Solum and his ten articles about originalism, The Case for Originalism.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/the-case-for-originalism-links-to-all-the-posts.html

First I will clarify my previous comment, followed by a long quote about the value of a centered circle, a perfect circle drawn with a compass instead of freehand. Then I will briefly relate the centered perfect circle to John Jay and his original meaning of "natural born Citizen" and how John Jay and HIS original meaning of "nbC" is the "center" that brings understanding and "centers" the discussion without discussion of ephemeral constructs, ethereal constructs, airy constructs, vaporous constructs that like soap bubbles go POP when not attached to a concrete issue like what did John Jay mean when HE authored the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the context of eligibility to be POTUS. That is the unsatisfying aspect of reading all of Solum's originalism articles. If he had discussed something as concrete as the original intent of "natural born Citizen" instead of esoteric legal issues, which I find interesting and worth analyzing and discussing, he would probably have included the discussion in Part One: Framing the Debate, Part Four: The Fixation Thesis, and Part Five: The Argument for Originalism from the Rule of Law.

I noticed that what I wrote seems to imply that Mark Levin was mentioned in Solum's originalism articles. What I intended to say, concerning the constitutional "scholars" and their public statements about the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" is that they do not include any reference to John Jay's 1787 original meaning, and that everybody that Solum "adduces as significant commentators about 'originalism' are insignificant," for that reason, and the "insignificant" commentators includes others like Mark Levin whom Solum did NOT reference in his series of articles.

Now, they are not insignificant, and here is the clarification:

Absolutely none of the constitutional "scholars" that Solum mentions, including Solum himself, and none of the constitutional "scholars" that he does not mention, which includes Mark Levin and others, are "insignificant" as constitutional "scholars." They are "insignificant" in that their conclusions are "insignificant" when they try to define "natural born Citizen" without adducing the source of the phrase, John Jay in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington. In fact, Solums' The Case for Originalism *, starting with the introduction, "Part One: Framing the Debate," is brilliant! After reading it people will probably say that it is excellent, so, how can Solum, whose congressional testimony endorsing the nomination of Judge Gorsuch was also excellent, be so wrong about Barack Obama being "eligible to the Office of President" when he had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent?

* The Case For Originalism:

Part One: Framing the Debate

Part Two: Methods of Justification

Part Three: The Baseline Comparison of Originalism with Constitutional Eclecticism

Part Four: The Fixation Thesis

Part Five: The Argument for Originalism from the Rule of Law

Part Six: The Argument for Originalism from Legitimacy

Part Seven: Underdeterminacy and the Construction Zone

Part Eight: Some Objections to the Constraint Principle

Part Nine: The Importance of Pairwise Comparisons

Part Ten: Implementing Originalism and a Conclusion

So,, how could Solum be so excellent about Gorsuch's originalism and for that reason be fit to be a SCOTUS justice and so wrong about Obama's eligibility to be POTUS? Well, maybe because Solum was not "centered" on John Jay and Jay's "original genesis original intent" meaning about "natural born Citizen."

The point of being "centered" brings me to the quote below (p. 330-31) from Joseph Telushkin's 2016 HarperCollins softcover biography: REBBE – The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. [Mendel] Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History (1902-1994).

Instead of paraphrasing this conversation between the Jewish seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe and a young student, how the Rebbe "centers" the student is relevant to how Solum, a true constitutional "scholar" and other true constitutional "scholars" like Mark Levin can become informed about John Jay's 1787 meaning of "natural born Citizen" by becoming constitutionally "centered" about "natural born Citizen" by analyzing Jay's original "nbC" phrase and how the U.S. Congress corrected their 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" language error with their 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language, which is how I will finish this extended comment about my natural born Citizen "new best friend" John Jay.

(The quotes and emphases from "In the 1950s" to the end of the quote are in the original.)

In the 1950s, a nineteen-year-old student at the Lubavitch yeshiva came for a yechidus to discuss his intention of going to college. More than three decades later, the then middle-aged man related to Rabbi Simon Jacobson the story of the encounter he had that day with the Rebbe.

"I told the Rebbe that the reason I wanted to go to college was because I felt I had done my studies in Torah and I wanted to expand my horizons." He explained that he intended to remain a Chasid but hoped a secular education and a college degree would help prepare him for a future livelihood.

After the student concluded his presentation, the Rebbe responded "Are you asking for an eitzah [advice] or a bracha [blessing]?"

The young man, perhaps sensing the response that was coming, answered, "I came in for a blessing."

"A blessing with advice is always better than one without advice." The Rebbe then proceeded to tell him, "In my opinion, you shouldn't go. You should continue your studies in yeshiva. You will be matzliach [successful] and you can be a leader in the Jewish community with that."

For the young man, the stakes were sufficiently high that he found it impossible simply to accept the Rebbe's veto of his plan. "How can the Rebbe tell me that when the Rebbe himself went to college?"

"Precisely because I went to university ["I studied science on the university level from 1928 to 1932 in Berlin, and from 1934 to 1938 in Paris" (p. 318)], I know what it's about. I know the environment, and I think it will have a detrimental effect on you instead of a positive one." Seeing that the young man was still unconvinced, the Rebbe tried another tack. "Can you draw a circle?" he asked.

"Yes," the young man answered, presumably perplexed by the question.

"Can you draw a perfect circle?"

"No, I can't, not on my own."

"What would you need to draw a perfect circle?" the Rebbe pressed.

"A compass."

The Rebbe, whose interest in and aptitude for mathematics was well known, continued, "Tell me the difference between the circle you would draw on your own and the circle you would draw with a compass."

"The circle I draw on my own won't have a sturdy center around which to draw the borders, but the compass's center creates a perfect circle."

The Rebbe then elaborated: "All knowledge you'll ever learn, every experience you'll have in life, are the circles. They're not the center. If you don't have a solid center, you'll have jagged circles, incomplete circles, many different circles. I sense that you need that center before you start building your circles."

When the man, then in his fifties, related this story, he added, "I didn't listen. I went anyway." He then started to cry softly. "And I still don't have a complete circle. I have many circles, this one, that one, none complete."

Mario, this brings me to the point about Solum, Mark Levin and et. al. not being "centered" on John Jay's original intent for writing "natural born Citizen" in his short note to George Washington. They discuss everything but the central issue, or in other words, the fulcrum, John Jay's original intent and by implication, why George Washington accepted Jay's language and forwarded it to the full Constitutional Convention delegates for debate and adoption, and eventual ratification by the states. Also, Jay's "centering" authority will clarify what I meant in the fourth paragraph above, "After reading it people will probably say that it is excellent, so, ... how can Solum be so wrong about Barack Obama being "eligible to the Office of President" when he had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.' "

The students response about how to draw a perfect circle pertains, "the compass' center creates a perfect circle." John Jay and HIS understanding of "natural born Citizen" is the very center of the perfect circle, the discussion of Jay's original intent, his "originalism" defines HIS original intent, not the commentators who wrote about citizenship concerning the laws of nations or who is a citizen. The commentators ideas are the circle, but John Jay's original intent is the center where the spokes are tethered. John Jay is the "compass" and his original intent is the "center" that creates the "perfect circle" and which gives meaning to being a "natural born Citizen" and being eligible to be president as compared to being a "citizen" and not being eligible to be president.

The 1790 Naturalization Act was erroneous and the 1795 Naturalization corrected the error. The serendipity is that the error and the correction reveal to us today in 2017 what "natural born Citizen" meant to the 1795 "citizen" Congress that corrected the 1790 "natural born citizen" error. Congress corrected the language of the 1790 NA to mean the same thing that John Jay meant in 1787: to be a "...natural born Citizen...eligible to the Office of President" a person must be born to two U.S. citizen married parents on U.S. soil.

In 1787 America and until the 1920s, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined, by marriage, the citizenship status of the wife and the children born to them. If the husband was a U.S. citizen, the wife automatically acquired the U.S. citizen status of her new husband, and the child born to them on U.S. soil automatically had the same U.S. citizenship status as the father, and, by definition, the citizenship status of BOTH U.S. citizenship parents. If the husband was not a U.S. citizen and the wife was a U.S. citizen, the foreign citizenship status of the husband determined the foreign citizenship status of the new wife, and when a child was born, the foreign citizenship status of the father determined the foreign citizenship status of the child.

The language of the 1790 Naturalization Act stated that a child born to two U.S. citizen married parents on foreign soil was a U.S. "natural born citizen," implying that the child is "...eligible to the Office of President." The 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the 1790 NA language and said that a child born to two U.S. citizen married parents on foreign soil was a "citizen" only, implying that the child was NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

The 1795 NA = 2 U.S. citizen married parents + born on foreign soil = U.S. "citizen" = NOT eligible to be POTUS. So also, a child born on foreign soil to ONLY 1 U.S. citizen parent = only a U.S. "citizen" = not eligible to be POTUS. Now, if a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents is not eligible to be POTUS, then Senator Ted Cruz, who admits that he was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, is certainly not "eligible" to be POTUS.

The 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction serendipity = 2 U.S. citizen married parents + birth on U.S. soil = U.S. "natural born Citizen" = eligible to be POTUS = Donald J. Trump is constitutionally a "natural born Citizen" because his mother naturalized as a U.S. citizen before her son was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Also, just as a child is not eligible to be POTUS if born on foreign soil to TWO U.S citizen married parents OR born on foreign soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent, so also, a child is not eligible to be POTUS if born on U.S. soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent.

That is the serendipity, the unexpected discovery, that the 1790 NA error of the first congress and the 1795 NA correction by the third congress reveal to us today in 2017.

The serendipity also reveals the judicial fiat error of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS "declaration" that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens is a U.S. "citizen" by birth alone – "by birth alone"!? Well, since the congress did not correct the Supreme Court the decision stands until it is overturned by the court or by amendment, but it does not change the history of the 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction that ONLY "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents does a child become eligible to be president. That means that U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, all three are NOT eligible to be president. Since having ONLY one U.S. citizen parent disqualifies eligibility to be president, certainly ZERO U.S. citizen parents, married to each other or not, disqualifies a person from eligibility.

The serendipity reveals to us today in 2017 America why John Jay is the center of the "natural born Citizen" perfect circle for understanding Jay's 1787 original genesis and original intent. The original "genesis" is "by birth alone" on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO U.S. citizen married parents, and the original "intent" is ONLY TWO U.S. citizen married parents can pass on their singular U.S. citizenship to a child, making that child "by birth alone" a U.S. "natural born Citizen" who alone of all U.S. citizenship designations is "...eligible to the Office of President."

So, Mario, and maybe I should add Larry Solum and Mark Levin, or anybody, correct me if I am wrong in any phrase or wording or the history of the 1790 NA and the 1795 NA. I could be wrong about something, but not about the history of the two naturalization acts.

Mario, I'm not a constitutional "scholar" and everything I know about the purpose for limiting eligibility to the office of president to a "natural born Citizen" I have learned from you, mostly, and my personal study since 2012 (I got into the game late, I know) when Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio gave his March news conference about President Obama's bogus birth certificate. Even if Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii (no hospital has published a public notice of his birth or posted a public plaque on a hospital wall since Obama became president, which tells us what the hospital administrators either know or do NOT know... which is a "tell" that Obama does not control) he has admitted that he was NOT born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents.

Now, a friendly challenge to Mark Levin, a true constitutional "scholar" who challenged anybody in 2016 to a debate about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" but then would not accept those who responded because he thought they were not of high enough legal and scholarship status. Well, why did he not debate them and correct their erudition with his own erudition?

See my last comment here on your blog on July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM where I posted Levin's refusal to follow through on his debate challenge, and where I also posted some info about all five of President Trump's children not being eligible to be president.

“Mario, if you were to write an article about the Trump children not being eligible to be president, I wonder if Mark Levin would finally agree to debate you?

“I wonder if Levin is really afraid to debate you.

“Levin implied that he has chosen to not debate anybody because everybody who has accepted his challenge is beneath his legal stature, or something like that. I heard him say it only once on his radio program a few months ago, last April or May [2016].”

So, my challenge to Mark Levin or Larry Solum or anybody is simple. Respond to this extended comment, not to me personally, of course, since I am definitely not a constitutional "scholar" like Mark and Larry Solum and others are, but Mark, for example, can respond to his audience on his radio program or on his online tv program. It shouldn't take Mark very long to correct my articulation of the "serendipity" revealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act correction of the 1790 Naturalization Act error since he has stated on his radio program more than once that Sen. Ted Cruz was eligible to be president and the 1790 Naturalization Act was his proof text, and, for some reason, he never referenced the 1795 Naturalization Act.

In conclusion, Mario, here again is the Lubavitcher Rebbe's advice to the young student: "I sense that you need that center before you start building your circles."

I also "sense" that Larry Solum, Mark Levin and other constitutional "scholars" who are not informed like you are Mario, about John Jay and his original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington "need that center" of Jay and HIS "natural born Citizen" original intent, HIS "public" meaning, before they start building their arguments – their "circles" – about why a person is eligible to be president with less than two U.S. citizen married parents.

See, that's how simple it would be to correct non-scholars like me and Article II Section 1 clause 5 constitutional "scholars." However, Mario, what I have learned in the five years that I have been reading your erudition on your Natural Born Citizen blog, is that I won't be found to be wrong about the history of the 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction and the perpetual significance of John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen": ONLY "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents is a person "...eligible to the Office of President."

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

2017-05-31

Dittos Mario,

For a long time I have been searching for a way to articulate the “implicit” intent in John Jay’s underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, and then the “serendipity” revealed itself to me recently, a couple of months ago. In my previous comment here two days ago I said that I got into the game late, in 2008, but I meant 2012, the day after March 1, 2012 when Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his news conference about Pres. Obama’s bogus birth certificate. That means that it took me 5 years to make this unexpected discovery of the implicit meaning of Jay’s underlining “born” and the now obvious to me connection with the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language and the correction in the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language.

First, the serendipity that is revealed by the language of the 1790 and 1795 acts is that both the first congress and the third congress, with the use of the plural word “parents”, implicitly stipulated that “two” parents are required for a child to be either a U.S. “natural born Citizen” or a U.S. “citizen”.

Second, the implicit serendipity, the unexpected discovery of what is implicit in the language of the two naturalization acts, is that not only “two” parents are required, but both congresses also implicitly stipulated that “two” married parents were required for, as you have written for years, the “naturalization” of the child born on foreign soil.

Third, implicit in the ”two” married parents stipulation is that, according to both congresses, both parents were expected to be U.S. citizens AND married only to each other before the child is born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction or born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction.

Fourth, the serendipity about the implicit intent of the language of the two naturalization acts adds credibility to the substance of the naturalization of children that you have articulated for years. The error of the first congress that passed the 1790 NA that the third congress corrected with the 1795 NA is that the U.S. Congress has constitutional authority to naturalize a “citizen” but it does NOT have authority to naturalize a “natural born citizen”, whether the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction or born on foreign soil that is under U.S. jurisdiction OR born on the U.S. soil of the 50 states.

To sum it up briefly, here are my recent serendipitous conclusions based on what I have learned from you since 2012 and by reading what you have written since 2008:

1790 Naturalization Act

Two married parents – both U.S. citizens – before the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction = the naturalization error – the child is a U.S. “natural born citizen”.

1795 Naturalization Act

Two married parents – both U.S. citizens – before the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction = the naturalization correction – the child is a U,S. “citizen”.

The serendipity derived from the two naturalization acts and connected to John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington is that John Jay knew that the common law of the 1700s meant that in 1787 America ”by marriage” the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, whether she was foreign born or U.S. born, and the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH married parents determined the U.S. citizenship of the child. By underling the word “born” Jay implied that in 1700s America two U.S. citizen married parents, married only to each other, are the common sense requirement for a child to be, “by birth alone” a “natural born Citizen” and “...eligible to the Office of President”, and that, as wJay rote in his note, the “command in chief” authority should NOT “devolve” on anybody except a “natural born Citizen” who is also ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, etc., and the implication continues generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

In conclusion, Mario, do you remember the Englishman Mr. Vaughn who asked Jay to administer "... an oath of allegiance to the United States" and your response? I’ll put just my intro comment and your intro comment response here:

ajtelles said...

"Unity of citizenship ...

"Mario, here is a brief letter from John Jay to a person called Del Campo about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughn who wanted to become a U.S. naturalized citizen, and who asked Jay, who was in Madrid, Spain in 1781, prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, to administer the oath of naturalization [correction: oath of allegiance].

"This indicates that in the late 1781, six years before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of John Jay about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child."

[...]

"Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"Art,

"I of II

"Thank you for sharing with us such a great find. I have the following comments on that letter of John Jay, the father of the natural born citizen clause.

"Jay’s letter to De Campo, Confidential Secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish Court, was written by Jay on November 3, 1781, before Congress passed its first naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1790. Jay’s letter goes to prove two things.

"First, the letter confirms that at common law a child born out of the United States (John Vaughan was born in England) to an alien father (British) who married a U.S. citizen mother was neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States. I assume that Mr. Vaughan’s parents were married from the tone of Jay’s letter. The letter shows that central figures of the Founding era were following the maxim partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition or citizenship of the “father,” which under the doctrine that wives took on the citizenship of their husbands meant “parents.”) Hence, under the common law, born out of the United States to a citizen mother and an alien father was not sufficient to be accepted as a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. "

[...]

For those who want to read your entire response, here are the time stamps of my two posts on June 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM and June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM and your response on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM, and the url link to your original 2013 post – The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter.

Here is the url to the original source for Jay’s letter:

>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html

Here is the url on your blog:

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=13

PS. Mario,

For Mark Levin, or anybody, to rebut and refute your eleven years of commentary about the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen, all they need to do is center their opening argument on the center point of the perfect circle – John Jay and his original genesis original intent. So, is Sen. Ted Cruz a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen" is a question with only one answer, that it seems to me, was implicitly dealt with by John Jay and implicitly by the third congresses 1790 Naturalization Act "citizen" correction of the first congresses 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born citizen" error.

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

2017-06-02

Dittos 2 Debates...

Mario,

On May 31, 2017 at 7:53 AM you wrote:

"Too bad that Mark Levin has not accepted my acceptance of his challenge that he expressed on his radio show to millions across the globe that he is willing to debate any attorney, authority, or scholar on the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that definition. He says that Cruz is and I say he is not. If not on his radio show, maybe he would accept doing the debate on his television channel. We can do it at a college or university. I think the College of William and Mary would be a great place to do it, assuming the college would allow it. If not, we can find another college or university."

Mario, if Mark Levin never accepts your offer to debate him, Georgetown Law Professor Larry Solum might be an alternative, although, being a classroom educator, the professor might not be as combative as Levin definitely could be, as Levin's phone responses to irritant callers who challenge him indicate, <i>"get off my phone you big dope"</i>.

I would prefer Levin because, if he follows through on his challen to all comers, he definitely needs to clarify his radio declarations that Sen. Cruz is a "natural born citizen" because his proof text, the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born citizen" language, says that a child born to "parents", implying TWO U.S. citizen married parents, on foreign soil is a "natural born citizen", and so that is why Sen. Cruz, born on foreign soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent is a "natural born citizen" and "...eligible to the Office of President."

Levin also needs to explain why he ignores the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language which he knows, being a constitutional scholar and all, he knows that what has been repealed by the congress, i.e., by statute, does not pertain. Does Levin not know that the U.S. Congress can "naturalize" a "citizen" but it cannot "naturalize" with positive law language a "natural born Citizen", which, as written in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the constitution, can only be changed by amendment? Of course Levin knows that basic constitutional vs. Legislative issue, right?

So, Mario, if (if "if" is the right word), if Levin never responds to your challenge to a debate at William and Mary, Professor Solum may be a viable alternative, he being a constitutional scholar, and all, as his series on originalism, "The Case For Originalism", shows.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/the-case-for-originalism-links-to-all-the-posts.html

>> His twitter url is https://twitter.com/lsolum

All Professor Solum needs to do is clarify why he wrote two opposing conclusions in 2010: "Anyone born on American soil whose parents [plural = two – implying married to each other] are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'," and in an updated version he wrote "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born "citizen.' "

Mario, on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 you wrote about Professor Solum in an article titled, A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject” .

This is your blog link to your article

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

Paragraph 13:

"Solum continues in his essay: "Both Jay and Wilson’s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”—a distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the nature of sovereignty. The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects. Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema. This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen.” Id. at 10-11." 

Paragraph 14 – the blog has the hot links to Solum's 2010 essays:

"In his earlier version of this essay, Solum stated: “Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." In this updated version, Solum explains that some readers misread what he wrote. Now he concludes that “[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen.” I agree with Solum’s previous statement but disagree with his current one. See my essay entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth for my reasons. Additionally, Solum does not cite what those “historical sources” are. What is also strange is that while the debate over Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status is currently raging, Solum, while now taking a position which benefits Obama does not even acknowledge that the issue exists. His essay is all about analyzing the eligibility of John McCain who was born in Panama to two United States citizen parents who were in military service which circumstances present a more defensible case per Vattel Sec. 217 than that of Obama whose place of birth has not been confirmed and who was born in 1961 to only one United States citizen parent (18 years old at the time of his birth)."

So, Mario, batter up! Put up or, uh, "get off my phone", or uh, professor, but, you said...

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

2017-06-02

Natural Born Citizen Debates

Mario Apuzzo, David Ramsay, Emer de Vattel

vs.

Mark Levin, Larry Solum, Robert Natelson

Mario,

After posting the previous comment today (June 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM) about debates with Mark Levin and Professor Larry Solum I remembered Professor Robert Natelson, author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, 3^rd Edition, published in 2014. He did not add anything to the text of the 2nd Edition published in 2011, but he did add footnote #25 about Emer de Vattel and how Vattel "clarified" what he meant by “parents”. After the quote from Natelson’s book about Emer de Vattel is your quote about David Ramsay that Natelson should be asked about to clarify what he, Natelson, meant about Vattel’s clarification.

Professor Rob Natelson

"...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."

On pages 147-48 Natelson explains what the language of the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1 clause 5 "...actually said and meant"; the footnote is on page 148:

"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.)”

David Ramsay

Mario, here is a short snippet of your comment about David Ramsay, and the url on your blog for those who want to read it all:

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

”Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...”

[...snip...]

“Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a person was one born in the country to citizen parents.

“In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the “natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).

”We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, ....

[...snip...]

”It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified."

In conclusion, Mario, for those who may wonder why the definition of natural born Citizen is so important I have very simple questions. Which words of the U.S. Constitution are NOT important? Were the words of the First Amendment intended to be temporary or perpetual? How about the Second Amendment? Was “...the security of a free state” intended to be temporary or perpetual? Was John Jay’s statement in his note to George Washington that the “command in chief” should “devolve” ONLY on a “natural born Citizen” and “...eligibility to the Office of President” intended to be temporary or perpetual, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS?

Well, Mario, you have written that you are ready to debate, so, Mark Levin, Larry Solum, Robert Natelson and et al., who will be the first to tap the plate? Batter up!

Art

U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com