stephen tonchen - obama presidential eligibility - an introductory primer

8/7/2019 Stephen Tonchen - Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

1/154

ma Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

//C|/MyDocuments/WebPage/birthers.htm[3/11/2011 12:10:21 PM]

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

Copyright () 2009-2011 Stephen Tonchen

Revision date: March 10, 2011

This document is subject to ongoing updating as relevant new information becomes available.The most current version is found at

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

This Primer, by Stephen Tonchen, is different from, should not be confused with, theWorldNetDaily Obama Eligibility Primer. The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in

June 2009, more than a year prior to the WND Primer.

Introduction

The Philadelphia Conventionadoptedthe U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 [01].Anyone born after that date must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to serve asPresident of the United States [02].

What is a natural born citizen? Even if President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth, ishe a U.S. natural born citizen?

According to an article which appeared in the Michigan Law Review in 2008, we know twothings for sure about the meaning of "natural born citizen":

Anyone who is born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens, is definitely,without doubt, a natural born citizen.

Anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship through naturalization, after his or her birth, isdefinitely not a natural born citizen [03].

But what about children born overseas to U.S.-citizen parents? And what about U.S.-bornchildren of alien parents? Such children are U.S. citizens by modern-day law. But are theynatural born citizens? So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not answeredthese questions.

In 2004, Senator Don Nickles predicted that, if these questions remain unanswered, they willsomeday become "a real issue":

The definition of this term ["natural born citizen"] is an issue that has been

debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts.Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. (Nickles)

Senator Nickles' prediction has come true. Today, an increasing number of Americans areconcerned that Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan native, might not be a "naturalborn citizen" and therefore might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as president[04].

Members of the mainstream news media generally believe that all persons born in the UnitedStates are "natural born citizens", regardless of their parents' citizenship. But this belief,though widely held, is not consistent with American and English history [05].
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htmhttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Conventionhttp://www.michiganlawreview.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Nickleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Nickleshttp://www.michiganlawreview.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Conventionhttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm


2/154



According to the Heritage Foundation, the notion that birthplace alone is sufficient to conferU.S. citizenship (in the Constitutional sense) is "historically and legally inaccurate":

The popular concept of "birthright citizenship" -- that anyone born while in theUnited States is automatically a U.S. citizen -- is historically and legallyinaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it anexclusive allegiance [at birth] is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship[under the Constitution]. (Heritage Foundation: Immigration Reform)

Six years afterthe 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. SupremeCourt -- in Minor v. Happersett(1874) -- commented that, if you were born in the UnitedStates and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, withoutdoubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also remarked that, if youwere born in the United States but your parents were not both U.S. citizens when you wereborn, your natural born citizenship is in doubt [06].

The Supreme Court has never resolved this "doubt" because, prior to 2008, there was neverany need to do so. With only two exceptions, every U.S. president who was born after 1787,was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens (Natural BornPresidency). The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. While running for

office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and laterburned most of his family records), thereby obscuring the fact that, when he was born, hisfather (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough -Chester Arthur).

President Obama publicly admits that his father was a Kenyan native who never became aU.S. citizen. At birth, President Obama acquired British/Kenyan citizenship by descent fromhis father. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowinglyelected a post-1787-born president whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. Moreover,2008 was the first time that the U.S. knowingly elected a post-1787-born president who was aforeign citizen (in addition to being a U.S. citizen) at the time of his birth [07].

U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens by modern-day law, but there isunresolved doubt as to whether such children are Constitutional natural born citizens. Thisdoubt is not based on the imaginings of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on thelunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, aswell as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.

This Primer introduces the Obama eligibility controversy, in question-and-answer format, fora non-technical general audience. We've double-checked the facts presented here, cited theirsources, and believe them to be correct. Please contact usif you find any material in thisPrimer that you believe to be inaccurate.

Contents

1. What is a "birther"?2. What are the eligibility requirements for president?3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama might not be eligible to serve as president?

4. Where should we begin looking for the original Constitutional meaning of "natural borncitizen"?

4.1 Modern-day word usage4.2 U.S. Constitution and Early Naturalization Acts4.3 U.S. Federal Law
http://www.heritage.org/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/05/Where-We-Stand-Essential-Requirements-for-Immigration-Reformhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.htmlhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.htmlhttp://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/mailto:[email protected]?subject=Eligibility%20Primermailto:[email protected]?subject=Eligibility%20Primermailto:[email protected]?subject=Eligibility%20Primerhttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/05/Where-We-Stand-Essential-Requirements-for-Immigration-Reformhttp://www.heritage.org/


3/154



4.4 English Literature4.5 U.S. Supreme Court

5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have historical or legal merit?7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen" requirement?8. What was the 18th-century meaning of the word "foreigner"?9. What is the difference between "Constitutional" and "statutory" natural born citizens?10. Wouldn't the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of "natural born citizen" take

precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?11. If Obama is not a "Constitutional natural born citizen", so what? Why should anyonecare?12. Why has every birther lawsuit been denied or dismissed?13. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?14. What was the originally intended meaning of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment?15. Doesn't the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a "natural born citizen"?16. Doesn't the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a "natural born citizen"?17. What was an 18th-century English "subject"?18. What was Calvin's Case?19. What was a "natural-born subject"?

20. Didn't Calvin's Case affirm the jus soli principle?21. How did Calvin's Case define ligeance?22. Who were "alien enemies"?23. Were English-born children of alien parents "natural-born subjects"?24. What did "actual obedience" mean?25. What was an English "citizen" before the American Revolution?26. Wasn't jus soli the "rule of Europe" when the Constitution was being written? 27. What does "born within the allegiance" mean?28. Did "natural born" imply exclusive allegiance at birth?29. What was Vattel's "Law of Nations"? 30. What is the root of the "natural born citizen" debate?31. What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate?32. Didn't the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?33. Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate provethat he was born in Hawaii?34. Do birthers actually believe that President Obama was born in a foreign country?35. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii,would it end the eligibility controversy?36. Aren't Obama eligibility challenges merely partisan attacks by Republicans against aDemocratic president?37. What is "Quo Warranto"?38. What can we do?

Appendix 1: Excerpts from Jus Gentium (1749)Appendix 2: Methods of English Subjecthood AcquisitionAppendix 3: Comparison between English and European Political TheoriesAppendix 4: Federal Quo Warranto Statute

FootnotesReferencesAcknowledgmentsDisclaimerRevisionsCopyright


4/154


5/154



Constitutional Crisis is Brewing, published on the birther website.

As the birthers, we are pointing out that the conditions of Barack Hussein Obama,II's birth is [sic] not only important, but critical to the constitutional order of ourNation. (A Constitutional Crisis is Brewing)

Birthers are people who are aware of facts -- not mere conjecture or speculation -- suggestingthat Barack Obama's legal status at birth might disqualify him from serving as president. ThePresident Obama's circumstances and activities after his birth -- his purported adoption and

citizenship in Indonesia, his alleged use of a foreign passport, his suspected acceptance offinancial aid intended for foreign students only, etc. -- are of interest, but are not the issueswhich define who the birthers are [08].

2. What are the eligibility requirements for president?

Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at thetime of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office ofPresident; 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 Residentwithin the United States.

This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of theUnited States, unless you are:

at least 35 years of age,a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, anda natural born citizen.

Regarding the third requirement ("natural born citizen"), the Constitution makes a specialexception for persons who became U.S. citizens before September 17, 1787, the date on which

the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Such persons may serve as president, even if they are notnatural born citizens [09].

Today, no one qualifies for this special exception. No one alive today was a citizen when theConstitution was adopted. In modern times, if you wish to be president, it is not enough to bea U.S. citizen -- you must also be a U.S. natural born citizen.

3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama might not be eligible to serve as president?

Birthers believe, or at least suspect, that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. They saythat, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must meet two requirements:

a birthplace requirement (you must be born in the United States), and

a parental citizenship requirement (both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at thetime of your birth) [10].

There is some question as to whether President Obama meets the birthplace requirement [11].There is suspicion that he might have been born in Kenya [12]. There is also speculation thathe might have been born in Canada [13].

Far more importantly, Obama publicly acknowledges that, regardless of where he was born,
http://www.birthers.org/http://www.birthers.org/USC/intro.htmlhttp://www.birthers.org/USC/intro.htmlhttp://www.birthers.org/


6/154



he does not meet the parental citizenship requirement. His father was a Kenyan native whonever became a U.S. citizen.

As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenshipstatus was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same actgoverned the status of Obama Sr.'s children. ... In other words, at the time of hisbirth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born inHawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) byvirtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. (FactCheck.org:

Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?)

Birthers believe, based on their understanding of American and English history, that anindividual must be U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen [14].If the birthers' understanding is correct, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and istherefore not eligible to serve as president. But is the birthers' understanding correct?

4. Where should we begin looking for the original Constitutional meaning of "naturalborn citizen"?

In this Primer, we begin by looking in places where the Constitutional meaning of "naturalborn citizen" is not found. Listed below are five sources which do not adequately define"natural born citizen" as used in the U.S. Constitution.

Modern-day word usageU.S. Constitution and Massachusetts Naturalization ActsU.S. Federal LawEnglish LiteratureU.S. Supreme Court

Even though these sources do not have what we are looking for, we must examine them firstbecause they give us important clues, background information and context that we will need

later.

4.1 Modern-day word usage: In the popular press and contemporary legal writings, the term"natural born citizen" is often construed to mean either (a) anyone who is a U.S. citizen atbirth, or (b) anyone who is born in the United States. In 1991, the following definition of"natural born citizen" was added to Black's Law Dictionary:

Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a nationalgovernment, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarilyresiding abroad. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026)

The modern-day "consensus" of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a naturalborn citizen:

Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a"natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office ofPresident or Vice-President. ... Some debate exists as to the meaning of thisphrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S.citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents. (Legal InformationInstitute: Natural Born Citizen)
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.htmlhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizenhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizenhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizenhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizenhttp://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html


7/154



According to an article published by the Yale Law School, there is near-universal acceptanceof the "consensus" viewpoint:

There is near-universal agreement that all persons born within the United Statesare natural born (Bonner, p.3)

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight oflegal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the children of foreigndiplomats, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notionthat "natural born Citizen" means one who is entitled under the Constitution orlaws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," includingany child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats servingtheir country) ... (Maskell, p.5)

But the Supreme Court has never accepted this "consensus" opinion. On the contrary, in 1874-- six years after the 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution -- the SupremeCourt expressed "doubts" concerning the viewpoint that all persons born on U.S. soil arecitizens (natural born or otherwise) regardless of their parents' citizenship [06]. Since thesedoubts came from the Supreme Court, only the Supreme Court can resolve them. So far, it hasnot.

The Heritage Foundation declares categorically that the "consensus" opinion is historically andlegally inaccurate:

The popular concept of "birthright citizenship" -- that anyone born while in theUnited States is automatically a U.S. citizen -- is historically and legallyinaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it anexclusive allegiance [at birth] is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship[under the Constitution]. (Heritage Foundation: Immigration Reform)

According to an article which appeared in the Michigan Law Review in 2008, we know twothings for sure about the meaning of "natural born citizen":

U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents are definitely, without doubt, natural borncitizens; and

natural born citizenship is established only at birth and cannot be acquired after birththrough naturalization.

Except for these two points, the meaning of "natural born citizen" remains unsettled andunclear [03].

4.2 U.S. Constitution and Massachusetts Naturalization Acts: The U.S. Constitution, andthe Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts (1776-1790), use the term "natural born citizen" butdo not define it.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the meaning of "natural born citizen" is not found inthe U.S. Constitution:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

In 2008, the Senate passed a resolution, expressing a non-legally-binding opinion that John
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41192270/CRS-Members-of-Congress-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questionshttp://www.heritage.org/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/05/Where-We-Stand-Essential-Requirements-for-Immigration-Reformhttp://www.michiganlawreview.org/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://www.michiganlawreview.org/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/05/Where-We-Stand-Essential-Requirements-for-Immigration-Reformhttp://www.heritage.org/http://www.scribd.com/doc/41192270/CRS-Members-of-Congress-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions


8/154



McCain is a natural born citizen [15]. The resolution acknowledged that "natural born citizen"is not defined in the U.S. Constitution [16]:

Whereas the term 'natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; ( Senate Resolution 511)

4.3 U.S. Federal Law: No existing Federal law defines "natural born citizen"; and no existingFederal law specifies who is, and who is not, a "natural born citizen". Modern-day laws usethe word "citizen", but the term "natural born citizen" does not appear in any existing Federal

statute [17].

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which used the term "natural borncitizen" in connection with foreign-born children of U.S.-citizen parents:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond thesea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural borncitizens (Naturalization Act of 1790)

Five years later, Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Actof 1795. In the 1795 Act, the words "natural born" were deleted, leaving just "citizens":

... and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits andjurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the UnitedStates. (Naturalization Act of 1795)

Throughout history, Congress has enacted various laws conferring U.S. citizenship to certainchildren at birth. For example, the 1866 Civil Rights Act stated:

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States (1866Civil Rights Act)

But after 1790, Congress never again passed any law containing the term "natural borncitizen".

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of "natural borncitizen", but it never became law.

In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511regarding presidential candidate JohnMcCain's natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legaleffect.

As of the time of this writing, there is no Federal statute that defines who is, and who is not, anatural born citizen.

4.4 English Literature: We are not aware of any English-language literature which, prior tothe writing of the Constitution, explicitly defined the term "natural born citizen".Nevertheless, the manner in which the English-language phrases "natural citizen" and "naturalborn citizen" were used from the 16th through the 18th centuries provides clues regarding theConstitutional meaning of "natural born citizen".

Bodin:In 1576, French political philosopher, Jean Bodin (1530-1596), published his mostfamous work, Les Six livres de la Republique ("The Six Books of the Republic").
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511http://web.me.com/joelarkin/MontereyDemographicHistory/Naturalization_1790.htmlhttp://web.me.com/joelarkin/MontereyDemographicHistory/Naturalization_1790.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.htmlhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=480http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=480http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2128is.txt.pdfhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2128is.txt.pdfhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bodinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bodinhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2128is.txt.pdfhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=480http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=480http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.htmlhttp://web.me.com/joelarkin/MontereyDemographicHistory/Naturalization_1790.htmlhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511


9/154



Bodin's Republique became known in England soon after the first Frenchedition was published in 1576. Richard Knolles began the translation forthe first English edition in 1603, in the immediate aftermath of James'saccession to the throne, and several years after Bodin's death. (Price, p.132)

Even before the English translation was completed in 1606, English speaking people --many of whom knew French -- were already reading and appreciating Bodin's work.

Bodin's political works were well-known in early seventeenth-century

England. One historian claimed that in 1600 no other political writer wascited in England "more often or more favorably" than Bodin. Anotherhistorian cited a dozen treatises from the Elizabethan and Stuart periodsmaking use of Bodin's formulation of the idea of sovereignty. Jameshimself, in The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, written in 1598, derivedmany of his ideas from Bodin... (Price, p.131)

Bodin defined "citizen" as a free subject who submits to authority for the greater good[18].

When the head of the family leaves the household over which he presidesand joins with other heads of families in order to treat of those thingswhich are of common interest, he ceases to be a lord and master, andbecomes an equal and associate with the rest. He sets aside his privateconcerns to attend to public affairs. In so doing he ceases to be a masterand becomes a citizen, and a citizen may be denned as a free subjectdependent on the authority of another. (Bodin)

According to Bodin, the "natural citizen" of a society is someone who acquirescitizenship, at birth, from at least one of his parents:

Just as slaves can be slaves either by birth or by convention, so citizens canbe either natural or naturalized. The natural citizen is the free subject who

is a native of the commonwealth, in that both, or one or other of hisparents, was born there... (Bodin)

Although one's parents' birthplace was relevant to one's "natural citizen" status, one'sown birthplace was not relevant to one's citizenship in general:

For place of birth maketh not the child of a stranger (man or woman) to bea citizen: and he that was born in Africk of two Roman citizens is no less acitizen, than if he had been born in Rome. (Bodin, Republique, 1st Englishedition, 1606, as quoted by Price, p.133)

Patsall:

The twelve-volume classic, Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, waswritten during the first century AD. It was popular in Europe during the 15th and 16thcenturies:

...enthusiasm for Quintilian spread with humanism itself, reaching northernEurope in the 15th and 16th centuries. Martin Luther, the Germantheologian and ecclesiastical reformer, claimed that he preferred Quintilianto almost all authors, "in that he educates and at the same timedemonstrates eloquence, that is, he teaches in word and in deed mosthappily" (Wikipedia: Quintilian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian


10/154



When the U.S. Constitution was being written (1787), there were two Englishtranslations ofInstitutio Oratoria: one by Guthrie (1756) and one by Patsall (1774).(Greschak).

Institutio Oratoria contains this Latin sentence:

Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant,ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. (Quintilianus,Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII, as quoted by Greschak)

Guthrie (1756) translated the above sentence as:

Therefore we ought, if we possibly can, to bring our Language andPronunciation to that Purity, that they may seem to be the Natives of ourCountry, and not naturalized into her. (William Guthrie's translation ofInstitutio Oratoria, as quoted by Greschak)

Patsall (1774) translated the same sentence differently:

Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, shouldbespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be

purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education.(Patsall, p.55)

The two English translations imply that the "native", or "natural born citizen", of Romewas someone who was "purely" Roman by "birth and education," not by naturalization.

Vattel:In 1758, Swiss philosopher, Emmerich de Vattel published Le Droit des Gens ("TheLaw of Nations"). It was written in French, and was popular in America, both beforeand especially after the American Revolution [19]. Some of the Founding Fathers knewenough French to read Vattel's work in its original form.

In Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Vattel discussed two concepts: citizen andnative. A child acquires, at birth, the citizenship of its father, regardless of where thechild is born (Vattel, 212,215). However, if your place of birth is within the country ofyour parents' citizenship, you are (by birth) more than just a "citizen" of your parents'country -- you are also a "native" or "indigene" of that country [20].

The original French-language version of Vattel's Law of Nations contained thissentence:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de parens

citoyens. (Des citoyens et naturels)

The first English translation ofLaw of Nations, published in 1759, rendered the abovesentence as:

The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who arecitizens.

These words were quoted, verbatim, by the Supreme Court in The Venus case (1814).

In an updated English translation published in 1797, the word "indigenes" was changedto "natural born citizens":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattelhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.thebirthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.htmlhttp://www.thebirthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel


11/154



The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, ofparents who are citizens. (Vattel, 212)

Today, one's nativeness is often defined by one's place of birth. The "native" of a country is,generally speaking, a person who was born in that country. But, in at least some eighteenth-century contexts, the English word "native" was synonymous with "natural" or "natural born",and implied something more than birth in a particular place. According to Bodin, a "naturalcitizen" was a native of the commonwealth, in that at least one of his parents was born there.In Institutio Oratoria, the Latin term alumnum urbis [21] is translated either as native (by

Guthrie) or natural born citizen (by Patsall), and is used in a manner implying a "pure"member of a society.

The French word naturels can be translated into English as either "native" or "natural born".In Vattel's Le Droit des Gens, naturels (noun) is translated as "natives". In a 1781 treatybetween France and the United States, naturels (adjective) is translated as "natural born" [22].

In the 1797 English translation of Vattel's "Law of Nations", the terms natives and naturalborn citizens appear together, in a manner implying synonyminity.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) defines "native" as a "natural-born subject" (Bouvier,

p.2297). Black'sLaw Dictionary

(1st Edition, 1891; and 5th Edition, 1979) defines "native"as "a natural born subject or citizen". In William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws ofEngland (1765-1769), Book 1 Chapter 10 is titled "Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens,or Natives". Within that chapter, "natural-born subject" and "native" are used interchangeably.

In at least some early English language literature, "natural born" was an adjective form of thenoun "native", and both implied something more than birth in a particular place.

4.5 U.S. Supreme Court: So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not given a full or completedefinition of "natural born citizen". In 1874, the Court reiterated the 1797 English-languageLaw of Nations definition of "natural born citizen":

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 Constitutionwere familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parentswho were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. Thesewere natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within thejurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this classthere have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It issufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born ofcitizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens (Minor v.Happersett, 1874)

In 1874, the Supreme Court said, in effect:

The meaning of "natural born citizen" is not found in the U.S. Constitution.

There is no doubt that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parentswere U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are a natural born citizen.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/


12/154



Throughout American history, some "authorities" have expressed the opinion that allchildren born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship, are U.S.citizens at birth and possibly natural-born citizens as well. This opinion remains indoubt.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark(1898), the Supreme Court discussed birthright citizenship atlength, but did not decide whether birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship. The Courtruled that Wong was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. (For further

discussion regarding Wong Kim Ark, see Question 15: Wong Kim Ark).

To summarize, persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitelynatural born citizens. The above-listed sources raise doubts as to whether natural borncitizenship extends to U.S.-born children ofnon-citizen parents. We must look elsewhere toresolve these doubts.

5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?

Obama eligibility supporters present three facts:

The State of Hawaii has issued an official government document (presumably a birthcertificate) which declares that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Hawaii was part of the United States in 1961, and still is today.

The modern-day consensus of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States is anatural born citizen.

Given the above facts, politicians and members of the mainstream news media legitimatelyask, "What's the problem here? How can there be any credible question or doubt regardingPresident Obama's eligibility?"

Birthers respond with two points:

1) Possibility of birth certificate fraud:In 1961, Hawaii residents could obtain a birth certificate for a foreign-born baby byfalsely claiming that the baby was born in Hawaii "at home". Since "at home" births aresuspect, the U.S. State Department no longer accepts a birth certificate as proof of U.S.birth and citizenship, unless the birth certificate specifies that the birth took place in ahospital or other "appropriate medical facility" (Shame on State Department).

Obama's published Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, does not say whether his birthoccurred in a hospital or at home. Consequently, according to modern-day standards,Obama's COLB does not constitute proof of U.S. birth and citizenship.

2) Original meaning of "natural born":In the modern-day consensus of legal opinion, anyone born in 18th century Englandwas a natural-born subject, therefore anyone born on American soil must be a naturalborn citizen. However, this line of reasoning is based on an incomplete understandingof "natural born".

During the 1600s and 1700s, there were two kinds of English subjects: born and made.Subjects born were defined as persons born within the sovereign's territory, of parentswho were under the sovereign's actual obedience or allegiance (see Question 24: Actualobedience). All other English subjects were subjects made; they acquired subjecthood
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/shame-on-the-state-department-the-mario-marroquin-story-how-war-veterans-and-other-citizens-born-in-a-house-are-denied-passorts-despite-having-birth-certificates/http://www.fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpghttp://www.fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpghttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/shame-on-the-state-department-the-mario-marroquin-story-how-war-veterans-and-other-citizens-born-in-a-house-are-denied-passorts-despite-having-birth-certificates/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649


13/154



from Parliament or the king.

The term "natural born" had two meanings: general and specific (see Question 19:Natural-born subject). In the general sense, all English subjects (except denizens) werenatural-born subjects, regardless of whether they were subjects born or subjects made.Nearly all children born on English soil, including children of alien parents, werenatural-born in the general sense. However, only subjects born were natural-born in thespecific sense.

In the original draft of the Constitution, the President had to be "born a citizen" of theUnited States. In August 1787, "born a citizen" was changed to "natural born citizen",for the purpose of excluding "foreigners" from the presidency (see Question 7: Originalpurpose). This wording change does not make any sense -- it would not have excludedanyone not already excluded by the "born a citizen" requirement -- unless the term"natural born" is understood in its specific sense only.

In short, the Obama eligibility controversy stems from two facts: (1) the fact that Obama hasnot released sufficient information to conclusively established his birth in Hawaii; and (2) thefact that, when Obama was born, his father was not under the actual obedience or allegianceof the United States, and therefore Obama is not "natural born" according to the specificmeaning of the term.

Dual citizenship at birth: In his "Fight the Smears" website, Barack Obama admits that heacquired foreign citizenship (in addition to U.S. citizenship) at birth, by descent from hisfather:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was aBritish colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyannative, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status wasgoverned by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed thestatus of Obama Sr.'s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S.citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship

automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982. (FactCheck.org, as quoted in Obama's"Fight the Smears" webpage regarding his birth certificate).

The President's public admission raises a question:

Is President Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States if heacquired foreign citizenship at birth? In other words, even if Barack Obama werea U.S. citizen at birth, can he be a U.S. natural born citizen if his citizenshipstatus at birth was "governed", even if only partially, by the laws of a foreigncountry?

Obama eligibility supports say "Yes". They believe there are only two kinds of American

citizens: naturalizedand natural born. A naturalizedcitizen is someone who becomes acitizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called "naturalization". A natural borncitizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the UnitedStates and was therefore a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen,regardless of his parents' citizenship and regardless of any other citizenship he also acquiredat birth [23].

Contrarians say "No". They believe that, when the Constitution was written, the term "naturalborn citizen" referred only to individuals who were, at birth, citizens of the United Statesexclusively and were not citizens at birth of any other country. Some children are born withdual nationality. They acquire U.S. citizenship at birth; they also acquire foreign citizenship at
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificatehttp://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificatehttp://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificatehttp://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate


14/154



birth, either from their birthplace or by descent from their parents. While these children areU.S. citizens, they are not natural born citizens. In order to be a natural born citizen of theUnited States, you must not be a citizen, at birth, of any foreign country; which means, youmust be born in the United States, of parents who were exclusively U.S. citizens at the timeof your birth [24].

Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen". Oneviewpoint understands "natural born" according to its 18th century general meaning; the otherviewpoint understands "natural born" according to its specific sense. Which viewpoint is

correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, therewas no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.

6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have historical or legal merit?

Birthers argue that the modern-day "consensus" of legal opinion -- that anyone born in theU.S. is a U.S. natural born citizen -- is not consistent with historical fact. In their view, thepreponderance ofhistorical evidence indicates that, when the U.S. Constitution was beingwritten, parental citizenship was an essential requirement for natural born citizenship. Onecould not be a natural born citizen unless one's parents, or at least one's father, was a U.S.citizen at the time of one's birth [25].

Birthers point out the following:

In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of the U.S. Constitution, a person had to be "born acitizen" of the United States in order to be eligible to serve as president. In July 1787,John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, recommending that the presidentialeligibility requirement be changed from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen". Thestated purpose of the change was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency.

From this information alone, we may infer that:

Someone who was "born a citizen" of the United States might also be a

"foreigner" in some sense; but a "natural born citizen" is not a foreigner, at leastnot in the same sense.

"Born a citizen" and "natural born citizen" pertain only to one's status at the timeof one's birth [26]. Consequently, the wording change from "born a citizen" to"natural born citizen" could not have excluded, from the presidency, persons whobecame foreigners during adulthood. The change could have, at most, onlyexcluded persons who were "foreigners" when they were born.

The change from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen" would not have provided anyadditional protection against foreign influence in the presidency -- that is, Jay's wording

change could not have barred, from the presidency, anyone who was not already barredby the "born a citizen" requirement -- unless the term "natural born citizen" meant aperson who was not a "foreigner" (citizen or subject of a foreign country) at birth. (SeeQuestion 7: Original Purpose)

In 1789, two years after the Constitution was adopted, David Ramsay questionedwhether William Loughton Smith was eligible to serve as a U.S. Representative fromSouth Carolina. Ramsay argued that one acquires citizenship as a natural right at birthonly if one's parents were citizens at the time of one's birth:

[Birthright citizenship] ... is confined exclusively to the children of those
http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=jojhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000633http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000633http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj


15/154



who were themselves citizens. ... The citizenship of no man could beprevious to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongsto none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July,1776. ... From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred,that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of thoseAmericans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquiredthat adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to theiroffspring. (Ramsay)

Since a citizen of any state was automatically a citizen of the United States, Smithclaimed he was a U.S. citizen by virtue of being a South Carolina citizen. Even thoughhe was born before the United States came into existence, he was nevertheless a SouthCarolinian by birth, having been born in South Carolina, of a South Carolinian father.

...my ancestors were amonst the very first settlers in South Carolina...Vattel says, "The country of the father is that of the children, and thesebecome citizens merely by their tacit consent." (William Loughton Smith,as quoted in The Documentary history of the first Federal elections, 1788-1790, Volume 1, pp.176,178)

Although they disagreed over precisely how and when Smith became a U.S. citizen,both Ramsay and Smith agreed that children naturally acquire citizenship, at birth, bydescent from their fathers. (See Mario Apuzzo, Founder and Historian David RamsayDefines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789)

In Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS(2001), Justice Ginsberg acknowledged that, throughoutmost of U.S. history, children inherit, at birth, their father's citizenship:

If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determinedby the father's citizenship, go back to before 1934,... Suppose Congresswants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our nation'shistory, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the

mother's? (Justice Ginsberg, as quoted in Natural-Born Citizen per JusticeGinsberg?)

Every U.S. president who was born after 1787 -- except Barack Obama and ChesterArthur -- was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens ( NaturalBorn Presidency). In 1880, the voting public seemed unaware that, when Chester Arthurwas born, his father was not yet a naturalized U.S. citizen [27]. The 2008 electionappears to be the first time in American history that the United States knowinglyelected a post-1787-born president whose parents, at the time of his birth, were notboth U.S. citizens.

While running for vice president in 1880, Chester Arthur told outright lies (and laterburned nearly all of his family records) thereby obscuring the fact that, when he wasborn, his father was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen ( Historical Breakthrough -Chester Arthur). If "natural born citizen" meant anyone born in the United States,regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much troubleto obfuscate his family history? Did he believe that his birth to a non-citizen fathermade him ineligible to serve as president or vice president? In 1884, President Arthuradmittedthat there were doubts regarding the legal status of a U.S.-born person (suchas himself) whose father intended to become a naturalized U.S. citizen but had not yetdone so:

Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. ... Section 2172,
http://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&printsec=frontcoverhttp://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&printsec=frontcoverhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argumenthttp://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argumenthttp://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22835http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22835http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3A1b9731d0-7e1a-45be-9f26-ebb966eeaaa3Forum%3A8a5f295c-c5c4-4e8c-8573-b5e3a72d3f75Discussion%3A3440241c-44a3-464b-ab0d-e1b0ad07e662http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22835http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22835http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argumenthttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&printsec=frontcoverhttp://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&printsec=frontcover


16/154



recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, isambiguous in its terms... An uniform rule of naturalization, such as theConstitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define thestatus of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign powerand of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention tobecome citizens... (Chester Arthur, 1884, as quoted by Long)

In 1862, U.S. Representative John Bingham (1815-1900), the principal framer of the14th Amendment, explained the meaning of "natural born citizen" to the U.S. House of

Representatives. A "natural born citizen" is born in the United States:

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt on this subject. The words"natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the otherprovision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have the power to pass auniform system of naturalization". To naturalize a person is to admit him tocitizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within theRepublic? Those born within the Republic are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. (Congressional Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess.(1862), p.1639,leftmost column)

A couple of sentences later, Representative Bingham elaborated that a natural borncitizen is also born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereign". NativeAmerican Indians owe allegiance to their respective tribes, which are separatesovereignties. Consequently, their children, though born in the United States, are notnatural born citizens:

All from other lands, who, by the terms of your [congress'] laws and incompliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizensof the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parentsowing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens.Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement except what is said inthe Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was

made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribeswere recognized at the organization of this Government as independentsovereignties. They were treated as such; and they have been dealt with bythe Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore they wereexcluded from the general rule. (Congressional Globe, 37th, 2ndSess.(1862), p.1639, leftmost column)

In 1866 and in 1872, Representative Bingham reiterated that a natural born citizen isone who is born in the United States, of parents not owing allegiance to any foreignsovereignty:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simplydeclaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human beingborn within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owingallegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of yourConstitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Congressional Globe, 39th, 1stSess.(1866), p.1291, center column)

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favorof a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizenof the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He wasborn of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Binghamhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham


17/154



by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day [to date], he isdeclared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.(Congressional Globe, 42nd, 2nd Sess.(1872), p.2791, rightmost column)

When Representative Bingham made his various statements regarding the meaning of"natural born citizen", no one questioned, challenged or disagreed with those statementsfrom the House floor (The House of Representatives Definition of 'Natural BornCitizen').

The U.S. Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word "citizen" in reference toindividuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizenparents. Such individuals were U.S. citizens by law or by naturalization. But theSupreme Court has never referred to such persons as natural born citizens [28]. In thosefew cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural borncitizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, inPerkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a naturalborn citizen. Miss Elg was born in the United States in 1907. A year before her birth,her father became a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother acquired U.S.citizenship through marriage. Thus when Miss Elg was born, both of her parents wereU.S. citizens. Also, in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark(1898), Justice Gray

quoted an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term "natural born" in connectionwith a U.S.-born child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child ofan alien. In Binney's opinion, both children were U.S. citizens by birth, but only theU.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled "natural born".

In 1797 (a decade afterthe Constitution was adopted), the English translation ofEmmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations was revised to include the term "natural borncitizen". The revised English translation sheds light on the late 18th-century meaning of"natural born citizen":

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, ofparents who are citizens. (Vattel, 212)

In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court alluded to the definition ofnaturalborn citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law ofNations:

...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents whowere its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. Thesewere natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens orforeigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children bornwithin the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ( Minor v.Happersett, 1874)

In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed "doubts" regarding the citizenshipof U.S.-born children whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark(1898), the Supreme Court examined these "doubts", but did not render any rulingpertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen; it didnot rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has neveranswered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

Based on the above (and other) information, birthers suspect that, even if President Obama isa U.S. citizen by birth, he might not be a natural born citizen and thus might not be eligible
http://books.google.com/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&f=falsehttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Binneyhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Binneyhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.htmlhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.htmlhttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/http://books.google.com/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=wk0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2791&hl=en&ei=EQpxTeupEI32gAePqsRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&f=false


18/154



to serve as president. President Obama publicly admits that his father was a Kenyan nativewho never became a U.S. citizen. Consequently President Obama -- regardless of where hewas born -- acquired foreign citizenship at birth by descent from his father. Birthers ask, "Cansomeone be a natural born citizen of the United States if she or he was born with foreignnationality in addition to U.S. citizenship?"

7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen"

requirement?

In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of the U.S. Constitution, an individual was eligible toserve as president if he was either (a) a U.S. citizen when the Constitution was adopted, or (b)"born a citizen" of the United States:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unlesshe be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of theUnited States. (Works of Alexander Hamilton, p. 407).

In a letter to George Washington, dated 25 July 1787, John Jay (1745-1829) recommendedchanging the presidential eligibility requirement from "born a citizen" to "natural borncitizen":

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide astrong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our nationalgovernment; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the Americanarmy shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. (JohnJay, Letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)

The stated purpose of the wording change was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency. Atthe time, a "foreigner" was anyone owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign (seeQuestion 8: Meaning of "foreigner"). Apparently, a person who was "born a citizen" of theUnited States could also be a "foreigner" in some sense, but a "natural born citizen" is not a"foreigner," at least not in the same sense.

A child can be, at birth, both a U.S. citizen and a "foreigner" (a foreign citizen) at the sametime. But, according to Minor v. Happersett(1874), "natural born citizen" and "foreigner" aremutually exclusive categories. A child, at birth, can be one or the other, but not both:

...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were itscitizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor vHappersett, 1874, boldface emphasis added)

In August 1787, Jay's recommendation was accepted. The presidential eligibility requirement

was changed from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen":

It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidentialqualifications be a "citizen of the United States." It was so reported to theConvention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day ofAugust, 1787. It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clausewas changed to read "natural born citizen," and was so reported out of Committeeon September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution. (Long, p.7)

The framers of the Constitution were concerned that a foreign power might raise a "creatureof their own" to the Office of President:
http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/alexander-hamilton-108.phphttp://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/alexander-hamilton-108.phphttp://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=%22hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+%2BHamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=falsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=jojhttp://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=jojhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=jojhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=%22hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+%2BHamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=falsehttp://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/alexander-hamilton-108.php


19/154



Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should beopposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries ofRepublican government, might naturally have been expected to make theirapproaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreignpowers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they bettergratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of theUnion? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68, March 14, 1788, emphasisadded)

St. George Tucker (1752-1827) explained that the purpose of the natural born citizenprovision was to exclude foreigners from the presidency:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be anative-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when theconstitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than theplague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot betoo much guarded against... To have added a [foreign] member to this sacredfamily in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils ofPandora's Box. (St. George Tucker, as quoted in Madison(2008))

According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), early patriots wereeligible to be president, even though they were naturalized citizens and not natural borncitizens. But after their generation passed away, only natural born citizens were eligible to bepresident. The reason for this "natural born citizen" requirement was to exclude foreignersfrom the presidency.

It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of theUnited States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteenyears before his election.

This permission of a [pre-1787-born] naturalized citizen to become president is

an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to excludeforeign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtlessintroduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soonbecome wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionarypatriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to highhonours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the officewould have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, willscarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitiousforeigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a

barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executiveelections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the electivemonarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, aresad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.(Story, 1473)

Precedent for foreign exclusion: It was not unusual for a nation to exclude foreigners fromits highest levels of government. The Jewish Torah, for example, prohibited the appointmentof a foreigner as king:

One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed68.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Tuckerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Storyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Storyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Tuckerhttp://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed68.htm


20/154



foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15, RSV)

In 1701, the English Parliament passed a law excluding, from public office, foreign-bornpersons of non-English parents:

...no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or thedominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen),except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the PrivyCouncil, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or

place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements orhereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust forhim; (Act of Settlement, 1701)

According to Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1764 and 1783 editions), foreigners -- eventhose who had become English subjects by denization or naturalization -- were ineligible tohold public office in England:

Foreigners, Though made denizens or naturalized here, are disabled to bearoffices in the government, to be of the Privy council, members of Parliament, &c.by acts of settlement of the crown. (Cunningham, Law Dictionary, vol.2, 1771,p.82, under "Foreigner")

It did not matter how loyal you were to the English king. It did not matter that you hadcompletely renounced all of your foreign ties and allegiances. It did not matter that you hadsworn an oath of exclusive allegiance to the king. If you were a "foreigner" at the time ofyour birth, you were not eligible to hold any public office in England, even if you were nolonger a citizen or subject of any foreign country.

Dual citizenship: When the thirteen colonies became independent States, each State had theright to decide, for itself, the citizenship status of any child that was either (a) born in thatState, or (b) born of parents who were citizens of that State. Any child who was "born acitizen" of a State, according to the laws of that State, became a citizen of the United States

[29].

States were not required to limit themselves to any "natural law" theory of birthrightcitizenship. Each State could confer citizenship to:

any child born in the State, even if the parents were citizens or subjects of a foreigncountry; and

any foreign-born child whose parents were citizens of the State [30].

A child who was "born a citizen" of a State might also be, at birth, a citizen or subject offoreign country.

For example, when the U.S. Constitution was being written, a child was a British subject bybirth if such child was either (a) born in the U.S., of British parents, or (b) born in GreatBritain, of U.S.-citizen parents. Depending on the applicable State law, someone who was"born a citizen" of a State could also be a British subject at birth.

...children and grandchildren, born of British parents in foreign countries, areBritish-born subjects; yet these, no doubt, by the laws of the respective foreigncountries, are also deemed natural-born subjects there. I am aware of thedifficulties which such persons may labor under with these double claims ofallegiance upon them. ...the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=719426http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1701settlement.htmhttp://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1701settlement.htmhttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=719426


21/154



obedience of such persons, because they owe another fealty besides that due tohim... (Reeve, emphasis added)

Status at birth:Natural born citizenship is conferred only at birth and cannot be acquiredafter one's birth [26]. Consequently, the presidential natural born citizen provision, in theConstitution, pertained only to one's legal status at the time of one's birth. The provision, byitself, did not prevent, and could never have prevented, the inauguration of a president whohad become a foreigner aftershe or he was born. At most, the provision only excludedpersons who were "foreigners" at birth.

When the Constitution was written, there were only two ways that a child could be a citizenor subject of a foreign country at birth:

by being born in a foreign country; orby being born of parents who were citizens or subjects of a foreign country.

If you were born in the United States and your parents were exclusively U.S. citizens at thetime of your birth, you were, without doubt, completely free of foreign influence at birth --you were, without doubt, not a foreign citizen at birth and not under any foreign legaljurisdiction at birth. On the other hand, if you were born outside of the United States or ifyour parents were not exclusively U.S. citizens when you were born, you could be both "borna citizen" of the United States and a "foreigner" (a citizen or subject of foreign country) atbirth.

According to John Jay's letter of 25 July 1787 and other historical documents of that timeperiod, the purpose of the Constitutional natural born citizen provision was to excludeforeigners from the presidency. Since the term "natural born citizen" pertains only to one'slegal status at the time of one's birth, the natural born citizen provision could, at most, onlyexclude persons who were foreigners at the time of birth. Consequently, the wording changefrom "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen" could not have provided any additionalprotection against foreign influence -- it could not have excluded anyone not already excludedby the "born a citizen" provision -- unless "natural born citizen" means a person who is, at

birth, a citizen of the U.S. exclusively and is not, at birth, a citizen or subject of any foreigncountry.

8. What was the 18th-century meaning of the word "foreigner"?

In 2009, the Berkeley Journal of International Law published a comprehensive historicalanalysis of the words "foreigner" and "alien", as used in English and American legal writingsduring the late eighteenth century. This analysis, written by Anderson Berry, found that"aliens" were persons who established a residence in one country, while they were stillcitizens or subjects of some other country; and "foreigners" were natives, citizens or subjectsof a foreign country, regardless of their current residence [31].

...the overwhelming majority of sources available to the drafters of the judicialbill [of 1789] define an "alien" as an individual who: 1) is foreign-born, and 2)resides in a sovereign's territory other than the one where he was born. A"foreigner" is defined as an individual who: 1) is foreign-born, or morespecifically, is a foreign citizen or subject, or 2) is a foreign-born individualresiding extraterritorially [outside the sovereign's territory]. (Berry, pp.337-8)

The eighteenth-century meaning of "foreigner" was not limited to persons born in a foreigncountry. If you were a citizen or subject of a foreign country, you were a "foreigner,"regardless of your residence or place of birth.
http://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL27.2_Berry.pdfhttp://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL27.2_Berry.pdfhttp://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL27.2_Berry.pdfhttp://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL27.2_Berry.pdf


22/154



According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word "foreigner" has a municipal meaning and aninternational meaning. In the municipal sense, anyone who is not an inhabitant of a city is a"foreigner" in that city. In an international context, anyone owing allegiance to a foreign stateor sovereign is a foreigner.

FOREIGNER. In old English law, this term, when used with reference to aparticular city, designated any person who was not an inhabitant of that city.According to later usage, it denotes a person who is not a citizen or subject of thestate or country of which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to aforeign state or sovereign. (Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law, FirstEdition, 1891, p.506)

Nationality vs. National Origin: In common everyday speech, the word "foreigner" can referto either one's nationality or one's national origin:

You have foreign nationality if you are currently a citizen or subject of a foreigncountry.

You are of foreign origin if you were a citizen or subject of a foreign country at thetime of your birth, regardless of whether you are still a citizen or subject of that foreign

country. You can acquire foreign citizenship or subjecthood, at birth, either (a) fromyour place of birth (the jus soli principle), or (b) by descent from your parents (the jussanguinis principle).

In 1608, Sir Edward Coke recognized that someone who is "alien born" can be either (a) offoreign birth (origin), or (b) of foreign allegiance (nationality):

An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also calledperegrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who isborn outside the land, that is, outside the king's power. (Coke(1608), p.204,footnote 151)

In Vattel's Law of Nations (1758) (see Question 29: Law of Nations), one's "country" is either:

the country of one's current nationality , i.e., the country of which one is currently amember; or

the country of one's national origin, i.e., the country of one's parents' "fixed residence",or domicile, at the time of one's birth.

As Vattel explained, you can change your nationality but not your national origin.

The term, country, seems to be pretty generally known: but as it is taken indifferent senses, it may not be unuseful to give it here an exact definition. Itcommonly signifies the State of which one is a member[one's currentnationality]: in this sense we have used it in the preceding sections; and it is to bethus understood in the law of nations.

In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term["country"] signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place whereour parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, itis justly said, that our country [national origin] cannot be changed, and alwaysremains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove. (Vattel, 122)

In Christian Wolff's Jus Gentium (1749), one's "native country" (the country of one's national
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+solihttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinishttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinishttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/d071.htmhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/d071.htmhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinishttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinishttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+soli


23/154



origin) is established at birth and can never change. It is defined by one's citizenship at thetime of birth, not the place of one's birth:

A native country is defined as a place, namely, a land or city, in which one'sparents have a domicile, when he is born... (Wolff, 141)

Since your native country depends upon birth, moreover, since what has beendone cannot be undone, your native country remains your native country, even ifyou establish your domicile outside of it, or abandon it, or even if you are driven

out of it. So England or France remains the native country of an Englishman or aFrenchman, even if he has established a domicile for himself outside of Englandor France, intending never to return to England or France. (Wolff, 144)

When (foreign-born) immigrants become naturalized U.S. citizens, they relinquish theirforeign nationality and thereby cease to be aliens. But they do not relinquish their nationalorigin; they remain "foreigners by birth":

Foreigner: A person born in a foreign country, or without [outside of] the countryor jurisdiction of which one speaks. A Spaniard is a foreigner in France andEngland. All men not born in the United States are to them foreigners, and theyare aliens till naturalized. A naturalized person is a citizen; but we still call him aforeigner by birth. (Webster: foreigner, 1828)

Summary: In the late eighteenth century, if you were a citizen or subject of a foreigncountry, you were technically a "foreigner"; it did not matter whether you were also a U.S.citizen. If you acquired, at birth, citizenship in both the United States and a foreign country,you were a "foreigner" (a foreign citizen or subject) until you decided, in adulthood, torenounce your foreign allegiance and become a citizen of the United States exclusively [32].

Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one's legal status at the time of one's birth, theConstitutional "natural born citizen" provision cannot exclude presidential candidates on thebasis of their current nationality. At most, the natural born citizen provision excludes persons

only on the basis of their national origin (their citizenship at the time of birth). Changing thepresidential eligibility requirement from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen" does notprovide any additional protection against foreign influence -- it does not reduce the number ofpersons who may serve as president -- unless "natural born citizen" means a person who is nota "foreigner" (citizen or subject of a foreign country) at the time of her or his birth.

9. What is the difference between "Constitutional" and "statutory" natural borncitizens?

During the 17th and 18th centuries, there was a distinction between an actual natural-bornsubject and a naturalizednatural-born subject. All natural-born subjects, both actual and

naturalized, had essentially the same property rights. Actual natural-born subjects acquiredtheir rights by nature and birthright. Na