A Common Sense Definition of a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen"
A Common Sense Definition of a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen”
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 1, 2011
The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new Constitutional Republic “citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading the following constitutional Articles: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.
Regarding presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “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.” So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.
The problem with applying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is that the Constitution as originally written defines neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we have to identify the sources to which the Founders and Framers would have looked for their definition of these terms. The historical record and early case law show that they probably would not have relied upon the English common law for these national definitions but rather on natural law and the law of nations to which they normally looked to solve problems of national proportions. This historical record and case law also show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite commentator on the law of nations. Vattel said “[t]he citizens are the members of civil society.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). He said that “each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.” Id. Other than explaining in Section 214 how a “foreigner” can become a “citizen” through “naturalisation,” Vattel did not explain how that membership or entrance into society is acquired. Incidentally, he said that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, historically, our nation has struggled with defining who is a “citizen,” which our Constitution and laws have called a “citizen of the United States.” On the other hand, Vattel clearly told us who is a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Id.
Hence, never in the history of our nation have we had any doubt as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”). Consequently, our national debate over citizenship has been over who is a “citizen.” This debate has involved former slaves and their descendents, Asians, American Indians, and even the children born in the United States to alien white European parents. But this debate has never been over who is a “natural born Citizen.”
Because of the doubts over who is a “citizen,” our nation has had to define a “citizen” in Acts of Congress, treaties, the Fourteenth Amendment, and through case law (e.g., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Regarding a “natural born Citizen,” we have defined this class of citizen only through case law which has explicitly or impliedly relied upon Vattel’s Section 212 and which to this day has never changed (e.g., The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons-explicitly); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring-explicitly); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (impliedly); Wong Kim Ark) (impliedly).
This means that a “citizen” is defined by Acts of Congress, treaties, and the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents or a child born out of the United States to one or two United States citizen parents or a child born out of the United States to alien parents who naturalizes to be a “citizen” after birth) and a “natural born Citizen” is defined by American common law. And that American common law definition has been since the Founding and continues until today to be a child born in the United States to a United States citizen father and mother. Finally, we are to keep in mind that the only difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President.
If putative President, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii, he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States." But because he was not born to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens when he was born (he was born to a father who was a British citizen), he is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen." He is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. September 1, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
I understand why the LWRM does not cover the eligibility issue. What is more of a concern is why does the Traditional American media refuse to cover the story. If it is mentioned it is only in the form of criticism almost to the point of being obviously fake or put on commentary. As an example, Bill O’Reilly’s obvious lies regarding the issue and giggling about it, the John Gibson tape, etc. It does not make sense. These people are not stupid. Any person with average mental competence, a small amount of logical capability, and the ability to apply an ordinary bit of common sense who spends thirty minutes researching the issue cannot reach any other conclusion other than the simple fact that the office of POTUS has been usurped by someone who is not eligible. I will not lay out all of the facts herein, it is not necessary. Anyone who has researched the issue knows that Chairman Soetoro needs to be removed from office on the basis that he does not meet the constitutional requirements to be POTUS. Even the OBOTs know this. They just don’t care as long as someone who is promoting their Socialist / Communist agenda is in power. Therefore, this is not about whether or not Chairman Soetoro is eligible to be POTUS or not. The fact that he is not is known by all who are familiar with the issue.
ReplyDeleteThis scenario creates a very scary enigma. Commander Kerchner suggests that the reason why the issue is not being properly addressed is the fear of race riots. That may be true and actually I hope the answer is that simple. However, I for one do not believe that ignoring the issue is a viable approach if that is the fear. First of all, I do not like the idea of establishing as a precedent that violating the laws of the land will be ignored because certain groups of people object to the law being enforced. I do not like the idea of Chairman Soetoro just being ousted in the next election and leaving office with our national security secrets in hand. He needs to be removed and jailed. In addition, I do not believe that all of the people involved in refusing to properly address the issue: the Congress, the courts including the SCOTUS, and the Traditional American media would neglect their duties and turn their back on the USA for this reason. I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that something more sinister and catastrophic for the American way of life is behind this inexplicable behavior on the part of these people who are entrusted with sacred obligations. I fear that there is some type of blackmail being employed. Such as: the release of secret information that would compromise our national security or worse yet; have suitcase nukes or biological weapons been smuggled into the country and being used as a threat? Consider how friendly Chairman Soetoro is with the Muslim Brotherhood and how he is supporting their power grab in the Middle East. I do not know and certainly I hope that these suggestions that I have put forth are not the reality of the situation. However, it is obvious that there is some powerful force more significant than the threat of race riots keeping the issue of Soetoro’s eligibility from being properly investigated and dealt with.
Hats off to Commander Kerchner, Lieutenant Colonel Lakin, and to all of those who have had the courage to stand up for the constitution, the laws of the land, and the American way of life.