constitutional article ii natural born citizen not same as english common law natural born subject

8/8/2019 Constitutional Article II Natural Born Citizen Not Same as English Common Law Natural Born Subject

1/11


2/11

subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown ofEngland, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king;

and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the

subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. Thething itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government;

the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.***The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born

subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France

differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it

is an alien. William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 36162.

As we can see, for children born within the Kings dominions and allegiance, they were

considered natural born subjects without any consideration for the citizenship of theirparents. On the question of what the Framers meant when they inserted the natural born

Citizen clause in Article II, putative President Obama supporters argue that the Framers

simply used the natural born Citizen clause in place of the English common lawnatural born subject clause. Hence, they argue that the clauses mean the same exact

thing. In practical terms, they therefore argue that in the mind of the Framers mere birth

on United States soil without any reference to the citizenship of the childs parents (with

exceptions for children of diplomats and of invading soldiers) made one a natural bornCitizen. In support of their argument, they cite language in United States v. Wong Kim

Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The quote is:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and

under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceivewhy this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no

express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' Subject' and 'citizen' are, in

a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to beappropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other

countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the

government and law of the land.' Id. 258, note. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169U.S. 649, 664-65 (1898). (quoting Chancellor Kents Commentaries). I submit that both

Wong Kim Ark and Obamas supporters are wrong in concluding that a natural born

Citizen is the same thing as an English common law natural born subject.

The Framers did not use the definition of an English common law natural born subject

to define a natural born Citizen. The text of the Constitution itself reveals that there is a

difference between a citizen and a subject. The historical context in which theFramers wrote the Constitution would not have motivated them to rely on the English

common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of

the Military of the new nation. The way the English common law defined a natural bornsubject and the Constitution itself reveal that for the Framers these two clauses did not

have the same meaning. Additionally, there is direct evidence from the Founding period

that shows that the Founders and Framers did not give the same meaning to the twoclauses.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html


3/11

Let us start with the text of the Constitution to see if it distinguishes between a citizen

and a subject and if it does let us consider the meaning of the terms during the

Founding era and what any contemporaneous court decisions said regarding the terms."The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between "citizens" and

"subjects." For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates "citizens" of the several statesfrom "citizens" or "subjects" of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflectedtwo distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political

community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were

the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the

revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen andassigned sovereignty to the people. The distinction between citizens and subjects is

reflected in Chief Justice John Jays opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, [2 U.S. (2 Dall.)

419 (1793) the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of theConstitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and

the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .[A]t the

Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns ofthe country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us

may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are

equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . . Sovereignty is the

right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides.In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people;

there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance;

our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to theirsovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. [Id. 471-72 (Jay, C.J.)].

Jays articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizen confirmed by Justice

James Wilsons opinion in Chisholm. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III,

the Constitution refers to citizens and persons, and not subjects: [t]he term, subject,occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet

foreign is prefixed.' Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen

Clause, Michigan L.Rev. 9-10 (working draft created on April 18, 2010) (footnotesomitted). "Justice Wilson explained that [i]n one sense, the term sovereign has for its

correlative, subject, In [sic] this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no

object in the Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens,

but no subjects. Citizen of the United States. Citizens of another State. Citizens ofdifferent States. A State or citizen thereof. (footnotes omitted). Id. at 456 (Wilson, J.).

Additionally, Article III, Sec. 2 refers to foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Solum continues in his essay: "Both Jay and Wilsons opinions suggest that usage in the

founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words subject

and citizena distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the natureof sovereignty. The term citizen reflects the notion that individual citizens are

sovereign in a republic, whereas the term subject reflects feudal and monarchical

conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty ofallegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the
http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263885http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263885http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263885http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263885http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/


4/11

original understanding of the phrase natural born citizen which was used instead ofnatural born subject, the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The

notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation:

those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were hisnatural subjects. Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign

and the notion of a natural born subject would be anathema. This leaves a gap in thetheory of citizenshipa gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural borncitizen. Id. at 10-11.

In his earlier version of this essay, Solum stated: Anyone born on American soil whose

parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." In this updatedversion, Solum explains that some readers misread what he wrote. Now he concludes that

[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person

born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a natural born citizen.I agree with Solums previous statement but disagree with his current one. See my essay

entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of

the Childs Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth for my reasons. Additionally,Solum does not cite what those historical sources are. What is also strange is that while

the debate over Obamas natural born Citizen status is currently raging, Solum, while

now taking a position which benefits Obama does not even acknowledge that the issue

exists. His essay is all about analyzing the eligibility of John McCain who was born inPanama to two United States citizen parents who were in military service which

circumstances present a more defensible case per Vattel Sec. 217 than that of Obama

whose place of birth has not been confirmed and who was born in 1961 to only oneUnited States citizen parent (18 years old at the time of his birth).

In order to understand what the Framers meant by terms they inserted in the Constitution,

we have to consider the historical context in which they wrote. They had recently won a

revolution with Great Britain and now had the task of constituting a new nation,including identifying who the original citizens were and who the future citizens were

going to be. The definition of natural born subject as found in the English common law

simply did not work for the Framers. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nationwas a Constitutional Republic with a representative government. Great Britain did not

have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great

Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary

monarchy but the Framers were concerned about the Office of President being attackedfrom within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the

political leaders themselves. The Framers understood that citizenship and allegiance went

together. Vattels born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best wayfor them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United

States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This

test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Framers understood and whichLord Coke explained did not assure anyones natural allegiance when he said liegance,

and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul

of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi. (p. 76). CalvinsCase (1608) (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) Coke believed that liegance was a function of natural
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdfhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.htmlhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.htmlhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.htmlhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf


5/11

law which he maintained was part of the common law of England. Daniel J. Hulsebosch,"The Ancient Constitution and the Expanding Empire: Sir Edward Coke's British

Jurisprudence," Law and History Review Fall 2003 (18 May 2010). The Founders

learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows thecondition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of

Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs ofNations and Sovereigns, Sections 212-215 (1758 French) (1759 first English translation).Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the childs parents into the

child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and

absolute allegiance in the new-born child. Charles Pinckney, who was the first delegate at

the Constitutional Convention to raise the issue of presidential qualifications, in astatement made in the U.S. Senate in 1800, said that the "natural born citizen clause" was

designed "to insure ... attachment to the country." The Records of the Federal Convention

of 1787 (Farrand's Records), CCLXXXVIII, Charles Pinckney in the United StatesSenate, March 28, 1800, p. 387. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2 . These citizenship concepts provided the

basis for their definitions of the original citizens and the citizens of future generations.

The English common law did not distinguish between a natural born subject and a

naturalized subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is to

all intents and purposes a natural born subject. Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in UnitedStates v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a

person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a natural born subject. Hence,

under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a natural born subject.Hence, giving the natural born Citizen clause the same meaning as a natural born

subject would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of thenew Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a natural born

Citizen is eligible to be President. The clause is written as No person except . . . shall

be eligible . . . which means that one must be a natural born Citizen in order to beeligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the natural

born Citizen clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not

eligible to be President. But assuming the natural born Citizen clause had the samemeaning as a natural born subject, with the Constitution as written it would not have

conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No

where do we find in the Constitution any direct statement that a naturalized citizen is not

eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon thenatural born Citizen clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the

Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators

(nine Years a Citizen of the United States) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizenof the United States) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and

Representatives needed to be Citizen of the United States for only a certain amount of

years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within Citizens of the UnitedStates and not within natural born Citizens. This shows that naturalized citizens were

not part of natural born Citizens.

Hence, equating the meaning of a natural born Citizen to a natural born subject
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/pinckneyc.htmhttp://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/pinckneyc.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm


6/11

would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejectedfrom the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created

an exception to the natural born Citizen clause which would have eviscerated the

clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8,Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given

Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing thenaturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreigninfluence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the

President, did not give Congress such power.

A letter that John Jay wrote to then-General Washington (transcription can be viewedhere) also provides evidence that the Framers did not equate a natural born Citizen with

a natural born subject. We have seen that if a natural born Citizen meant the same

thing as a natural born subject, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to bePresident of the new Republic. Giving the two clauses the same meaning would have

produced a clear contradiction and a condition which the Framers rejected. We know that

the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a citizen of the United States(able to be President under Article IIs grandfather clause and Senator or Representative

under Article I) and not a natural born Citizen, which status was required of a would-be

President for births after 1787. How the English common law converted naturalized

persons into "natural born subject" retroactively to the time of birth can explain why JohnJay underlined the word "born" when recommending to General Washington in his

famous letter of July 25, 1787 that it was both wise and seasonable for the purpose of

providing a strong check against foreign influence invading the new nationalgovernment that the Constitution declare expressly that the Command in chief of the

American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen(underlining the word born). Jays underlining of the word born is evidence that he

rejected a naturalized citizen as being eligible for that office. This is further evidence that

the Founders rejected the meaning of a natural born subject which was not necessarilytied to the time of actual birth. Not being a natural born Citizen, the Founders did not

permit naturalized citizens to be President. The Framers, after 1787 (when the

grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a natural born Citizenand not only a Citizen of the United States) did not allow naturalized citizens to be

President, for they would have been included in the class of Citizens of the United

States and not in the class of natural born Citizens. This rejection of a naturalized

citizen as equivalent to a "natural born Citizen" was consistent with the law of nations.Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the

Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Sections 212-214 (1758 French) (1759

first English translation). The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause as originallyintended (not the way that it has come to be interpreted by giving subject to the

jurisdiction thereof a territorial meaning rather than an allegiance and political one) also

made the same recognition.

Further evidence that the Founders and Framers did not consider the two clauses as

meaning the same thing can be found in the writings of David Ramsay, who published ADissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpghttp://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpghttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpghttp://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg


7/11

(1789). David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician andhistorian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress

in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was one of the American Revolutions first major

historians. Ramsay was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known andrespected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for

The History of the American Revolution (1789) Arthur H. Shaffer, Between TwoWorlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984).In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase natural born Citizen, Ramsay described

the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire

citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the

Framers called the original citizens Citizens of the United States and those thatfollowed them natural born Citizens. He said concerning the children born after the

declaration of independence, [c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who

have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children ofthose who were themselves citizens. Id. at 6. He added that citizenship by

inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived

the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right,and transmitted it to their offspring. Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship as a

natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of

July, 1776. Id. at 6. Here, Ramsay referred to natural right, which ties into the

Framers use of the clause natural born Citizen. By focusing on citizenship that occursby natural right, Ramsay distinguished citizenship that occurs naturally versus

citizenship that occurs by operation of law. But Ramsay also explained that there is an

immense difference between a British subject and a United States citizen, with theformer being under the power of another and the latter being a unit of mass of free

people, who, collectively, posses sovereignty. He informed that Republics, both ancientand modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship. He then explained that the

original citizens of the United States were those who were parties to the Declaration of

Independence and thereby adhered to the revolutionary cause. It is evident from hiswriting that in defining a citizen of the United States and a natural born Citizen,

Ramsay did not look to English common law but rather to natural law, the law of nations,

and Vattel, Sec. 212. Ramsays dissertation presents valuable evidence of how theFounding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens

which the Framers called natural born Citizens. It is valuable because it is evidence of

the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified, if not among

the general population then at least among those learned in the law. For furtherinformation on David Ramsay and the natural born Citizen clause, see my essay

entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.

A natural born subject under English common law if born within the domain and

allegiance of the King did not need any connection to citizen parents. But Jefferson in

1799 wrote the citizenship laws of Virginia which provided as follows:

"A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth: May 1779

Papers 2:476--78
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htmhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html


8/11

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of

this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of

this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court ofrecord give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside

therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and allinfants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, acitizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise

their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be

deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as

herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States ofAmerica, shall be deemed aliens. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this

commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in

which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance andhappiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare

unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any

citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen ofthis commonwealth, shall by word of mouth openly declare to the same court, that he

relinquishes the character of a citizen,such person shall be considered as having

exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this

commonwealth from the time of his departure. The free white inhabitants of every of thestates, parties to the American confederation, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from

justice excepted, shall be intitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities of free citizens

in this commonwealth, and shall have free egress, and regress, to and from the same, andshall enjoy therein, all the privileges of trade, and commerce, subject to the same duties,

impositions and restrictions as the citizens of this commonwealth. " http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html . His citizenship law of 1783 was

similar to his 1779.

As we can see from his law, Jefferson provided different criteria for two different classes

of citizens. For the first class, who were adults and already in existence, he provided one

requirement (jus soli would be sufficient). He grandfathered these adults to be the firstcitizens. But for those who were infants and to be born in the future, he provided a

different requirement. For this latter group, only jus sanguinis tied to both parents would

be sufficient to make them citizens. It is important to understand the historical context in

which Jefferson wrote his citizenship law because the Framers wrote within the samehistorical context when they drafted the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause

5. This historical context was one of a new state rising from revolution. It is the historical

context of the infant state (Jefferson in the 1783 citizenship laws) which is the genesisfor the Framers distinction in Article II and other sections of the Constitution between a

Citizen of the United States and a natural born Citizen, a distinction that our United

States Supreme Court carried forward throughout American history. It is only becauseJefferson and the other Founders were creating citizenship for a new state having just

emerged from revolution that they had the need to first identify who were the first

citizens and who were going to be the future citizens. The Framers also grandfathered thefirst citizens as did Jefferson. They called these persons citizens of the United States.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html


9/11

These would have been the adults already in being at the time that the Constitution wasadopted in 1787. These were adults who were either born or naturalized in the colonies or

states or simply inhabiting there and adhered to the Revolution. But the Framers provided

that for those persons who were infants after 1787, they would have to be natural bornCitizens in order to be eligible to be President. The historical evidence, United States

Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts show that this second generation citizens,like Jeffersons second generation citizens, would come into being as natural bornCitizens but only if they descended from persons already citizens of the United States.

English statutes also considered children born abroad to parents who were natural born

subjects to be themselves natural born subjects. Again, Blackstone explained that bysome modern English statutes: [A]ll children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose

fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all

intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, orbanished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity

with Great Britain. As can be seen, these statutes granted natural born subject status to

such children regardless of, with the exceptions noted, in which type of service theparents were engaged. Jefferson wrote for citizenship in Virginia and so in his 1779 law

he did not require that the child be born in the State. The Framers wrote for national

citizenship and they did require birth in the United States to be considered an Article II

natural born Citizen. Note that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (Act of March 26, 1790,ch. 3, Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103, 103-04 (1790)), itself a naturalization act passed by the First

Congress under its naturalization powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, only provided

that children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the UnitedStates were considered as natural-born citizens . . . . By passing this law and using this

language, the First Congress, which included twenty members who had been delegates tothe Constitutional Convention eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven

that drafted the natural born Citizen clause, told us that these children were not in fact

natural born Citizens but rather only made such through Congresss naturalizationpowers. The Constitution only gave Congress the power to make uniform the

naturalization laws which did not include the power to define a natural born Citizen.

These children were only given the rights of natural born Citizens and were notactually natural born Citizens. The Third Congress confirmed that these children born

abroad to United States citizen parents did not have actual Article II natural born

Citizen status (to be distinguished from such status being granted by a naturalization actof Congress) when in 1795 it changed their status from being natural born citizens to

citizens of the United States. If these children were Article II natural born Citizens,

Congress would not have had the power to take away through any statute their

constitutional natural born status. Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment which containsthe jurisdiction and the necessary and proper clauses, Article II does not provide

Congress with any way to define a natural born Citizen. It should be noted that a valid

constitutional argument can be made that a child born abroad to United States citizenparents who are serving the armies of the state or even in some other government service

are Article II natural born Citizens, for they are reputed born in the country. Vattel,

Sec. 217. Children born abroad under such circumstances will most likely not attach theirallegiance to the foreign country in which they may be born and rather through their


10/11

relationship with their United States citizen mother and father become loyal only to theUnited States.

A natural born subject under English common law could never renounce his or herallegiance. Mannie Brown explained the old common-law doctrine Nemo potest exuere

patriam by quoting Lord Coke in Calvins Case: Ligeance is a true and faithfulobedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incidentinseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance

and obedience to his Sovereign. Mannie Brown, Expatriation of Infants, University of

Toronto Press 97 (1939). But as we have seen above, in his 1799 citizenship law

Jefferson wrote that a person could exercise his natural right of expatriating himselfwhensoever he saw fit to do so. Jefferson included in his law a right in a person to

relinquish his citizenship in a manner prescribed by law. This right was known as the

right to expatriate which was not only alien to English common law but forbidden by it.Jeffersons idea that a person could renounce allegiance to the country of his or her birth

was so accepted by early Congresses and society that Congress codified this right by

passing the Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), which provided personsnaturalizing in the United States to absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance to any

foreign prince or state and to support the Constitution. Over the years, there continued a

debate in the courts whether an American citizen could expatriate himself or herself. The

matter was finally settled in 1868, when Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868and Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania proclaimed that by doing so Congress

had driven feudalism from our shores.

Jeffersons views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural

law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questionsof citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his

views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:

"To Doctor John Manners.

Monticello, June 12, 1817.

SIR

Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertnessof age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I

have been to its labors.

My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned

to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right

expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right,like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is

not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the

sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, butunder the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.htmlhttp://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.htmlhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27


11/11

happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safelycall on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced,

for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of

happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, Imight safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever

denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it isallowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I everheard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no

law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . "

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html . We can see how Jefferson

was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursuehappiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common

law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was

applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he statedthat no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from

natural law rather than the English common law. As Jefferson applied natural law to the

question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a natural bornCitizen. These historical writings show that Jefferson surely would not have considered

a natural born Citizen to have the same meaning as an English common law natural

born subject.

All this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Founders and Framers did not give

the natural born Citizen clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to

a natural born subject. For further information explaining that the Framers did not relyupon English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define

a natural born Citizen, see my essay entitled, 'The Law of Nations or Principles ofNatural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an

Article II Natural Born Citizen Is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

May 19, 2010

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/####

P.S. For more on natural born Citizenship to constitutional standards, see my essay:

Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen"

Posted by Puzo1 at 10:40 AM

Labels: Charles Kerchner, constitutional eligibility president, David Ramsay, Jefferson,

kerchner v obama, Mario Apuzzo, natural born citizen, Natural Law, The Law ofNations, Vattel
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Charles%20Kerchnerhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/constitutional%20eligibility%20presidenthttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/David%20Ramsayhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Jeffersonhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/kerchner%20v%20obamahttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Mario%20Apuzzohttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/natural%20born%20citizenhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Natural%20Lawhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Law%20of%20Nationshttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Law%20of%20Nationshttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Vattelhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Vattelhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Law%20of%20Nationshttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Law%20of%20Nationshttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Natural%20Lawhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/natural%20born%20citizenhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Mario%20Apuzzohttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/kerchner%20v%20obamahttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Jeffersonhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/David%20Ramsayhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/constitutional%20eligibility%20presidenthttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/search/label/Charles%20Kerchnerhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.htmlhttp://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html

constitutional article ii natural born citizen not same as english common law natural born subject

Documents