info@wethepeople.us

The Unchanging Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’: A Constitutional Perspective

Download the Kamala Harris Affidavit & Estoppel

Please take notice that this lawful notification outlines the constitutional ineligibility and maladministration regarding Kamala Devi Harris's candidacy for President. This document is provided for your personal review, use, and distribution as part of your effort to hold public officials accountable under the law. Click below to download the full affidavit and estoppel notice.

 

Click Here

The words and phrases enshrined in the U.S. Constitution hold a timeless quality, their meanings meticulously chosen by the Founding Fathers. These definitions were not arbitrary but rooted in well-established principles of law and governance, designed to endure through the ages. One such term, “Natural Born Citizen,” as mentioned in Article 2, has been the subject of much debate in modern times. However, a closer examination of historical context and legal foundations reveals a steadfast definition that remains unaltered since the Constitution’s creation.

The Founding Fathers drew significant inspiration from The Law of Nations when crafting the Constitution and defining the powers of the new nation. The Law of Nations, a comprehensive legal treatise by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, was a cornerstone in the Founders’ understanding of international law, sovereignty, and citizenship. Vattel’s work was not merely influential; it was one of  the primary sources that shaped the legal terminology and principles embedded in the Constitution.

The term “Natural Born Citizen” finds its definitive clarity in The Law of Nations. Vattel explicitly defined a “natural-born citizen” as one born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was well understood and accepted during the drafting of the Constitution. This understanding is not just inferred but directly referenced in the Constitution itself. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, implicitly acknowledging its principles as foundational to the new American legal system.

Vattel’s precise wording in The Law of Nations (§ 212) leaves no room for ambiguity:

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 212 (T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1852). "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

This definition was not only well-known but was the only source available at the time that offered such a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a “natural-born citizen.” The Founding Fathers, including figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, frequently referenced Vattel’s work when framing the Constitution. This is further evidenced by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington, where he stressed the necessity of ensuring that only a “Natural Born Citizen” could hold the office of President to prevent foreign influence.

Moreover, Vattel’s influence extended beyond the drafting of the Constitution and into the judicial interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has referenced Vattel’s work in dozens of rulings to define key constitutional principles and terms. For example:

  • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The Supreme Court referenced Vattel to articulate principles of state sovereignty and the law of nations, which were foundational in determining the relationship between states and the federal government.
  • The Paquete Habana (1900): This case relied on The Law of Nations to affirm that international law is part of U.S. law, emphasizing the relevance of Vattel’s principles in the American legal system.
  • Ware v. Hylton (1796): Vattel’s views on treaties and international obligations were cited, underscoring his influence on how the Supreme Court interpreted treaty obligations under the Constitution.
  • Talbot v. Janson (1795): The Court used Vattel’s definitions of citizenship and allegiance to resolve questions of dual nationality and expatriation.

These cases demonstrate that the principles set forth in The Law of Nations were not merely theoretical but were actively applied by the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution and guide legal decisions.

To further support the argument that the term “natural born citizen” has consistently been understood within the framework set forth by Vattel, it’s essential to highlight that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this interpretation in key rulings. Specifically, the Court has applied the term “natural born citizen” exclusively to individuals born in the country to parents who are citizens thereof, aligning directly with Vattel’s definition as stated in The Law of Nations.

The following Supreme Court cases illustrate this consistent interpretation:

  1. Minor v. Happersett (1875): The Court explicitly stated that “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens,” directly echoing Vattel’s definition. This ruling confirmed that the understanding of “natural born citizen” was well-established and had not been expanded to include other categories.

  2. The Venus (1814): Justice John Marshall cited Vattel directly, emphasizing that those who are born in the country to parents who are citizens are the true “natural born citizens.” This case reinforced the strict interpretation of the term as it relates to eligibility for the presidency.

  3. Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Court again referred to Vattel’s definition of citizenship to resolve issues of allegiance and natural-born status, affirming that a “natural born citizen” must be born within the jurisdiction of the United States to citizen parents.

  4. Wong Kim Ark (1898): While this case focused on the status of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, the Court made a clear distinction between “citizens at birth” under the 14th Amendment and “natural born citizens” eligible for the presidency, reserving the latter term for those born to citizen parents.

These cases collectively demonstrate that the definition of “natural born citizen” as articulated by Vattel has been not only recognized but also consistently upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Founding Fathers’ reliance on Vattel’s work, combined with the judiciary’s adherence to this interpretation, underscores the original intent behind the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility and the exclusion of any broader definition that might introduce foreign influence.

Fast forward to the present day, and we encounter a shift in interpretation. Modern discourse often suggests that being born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship, suffices to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” This reinterpretation diverges from the original intent and understanding of the Founding Fathers. It overlooks the significance placed on lineage and the transmission of citizenship through parentage.

It’s important to note that while William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) defined “natural-born subjects” based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), the American Founders were consciously distancing themselves from the English monarchical system. They sought to establish a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, free from the hereditary and territorial notions of allegiance inherent in a monarchy. Therefore, they favored Vattel’s jus sanguinis (right of blood) approach, which emphasized citizenship through parentage, aligning more closely with the ideals of a self-determining republic.

For example, some contemporary sources, such as the Cornell Law School’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” misinterpret the term and even misquote the Supreme Court, pushing a narrative that distorts the historical definition. This modern reinterpretation suggests that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient for natural-born status, contradicting the stringent requirements originally set by the Founding Fathers.

The consistency in the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is not just a matter of historical fidelity; it is a safeguard for the principles upon which the nation was founded. The requirement that the President be a “Natural Born Citizen” ensures a deeper connection to the country, one that is inherited through citizen parents. This provision aims to prevent divided loyalties and ensure that the nation’s highest office is held by someone with an unambiguous and inherent bond to the United States.

Moreover, the broader implications of redefining such terms extend beyond just the presidency. It raises questions about our commitment to constitutional principles and the stability of legal interpretations. When we allow contemporary pressures to alter foundational definitions, we risk undermining the very framework that has sustained our republic for over two centuries. The stability of our legal system relies on consistent and faithful adherence to the meanings ascribed by the Founding Fathers.

The Law of Nations also provides guidance on maintaining the integrity of foundational laws. Chapter 3, Section 30 emphasizes that fundamental laws are not changeable by the legislature. It states that these fundamental laws are entrenched, forming the core principles upon which the government is built. This means that any attempt to alter the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” through legislative means would be contrary to the established legal doctrine upheld by the Founding Fathers.

Additionally, the Law of Nations outlines the duty of citizens to protect their Constitution. It advocates for vigilance and active participation in governance to ensure that the fundamental laws are preserved. This includes resisting any attempts to undermine or alter these core principles, thereby safeguarding the nation’s legal and political integrity.

A prominent example of the importance of this definition is the current debate surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris. According to the strict interpretation of the term “Natural Born Citizen” as outlined by the Founding Fathers and the Law of Nations, Harris does not meet the criteria. She was born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. Therefore, under the original meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” Harris would not be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

This debate spans across political parties. For instance, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Despite his mother’s citizenship, Cruz’s Canadian birthplace disqualifies him from being considered a “Natural Born Citizen” under the original interpretation, thus barring him from the presidency. Similarly, Marco Rubio, another Republican, was born to Cuban immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time, rendering him ineligible as well. Vivek Ramaswamy faces the same issue, as his parents were Indian citizens when he was born.

Ineligible Republicans

Ted Cruz

Marco Rubio

Vivek Ramaswamy

Ineligible Democrats

Kamala Harris

Barack Obama

Jennifer Granholm

On the Democratic side, former President Barack Obama faced considerable scrutiny concerning his citizenship status. Although Obama asserted that he was born in Hawaii, there was controversy surrounding this claim. Nonetheless, irrespective of his birthplace, his father’s status as a non-U.S. citizen meant that Obama did not meet the criterion of being born to two citizen parents, as originally understood by the Founding Fathers. This foundational requirement calls into question the legitimacy of his presidency from the outset. Governor Jennifer Granholm, born in Canada to Canadian parents, would also not meet the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement despite her naturalized U.S. citizenship.

These examples demonstrate that the issue goes beyond party affiliations and highlight the importance of upholding the Constitution’s original definitions. Despite arguments to the contrary, the original meaning remains evident and unchanged. The Founding Fathers chose their words carefully, drawing on the legal principles of their era. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly states, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens,” clearly reflecting the understanding of the term at the nation’s founding. As guardians of the Constitution, it is our responsibility to preserve and honor these definitions, ensuring the document’s integrity for future generations.

In conclusion, the term “Natural Born Citizen” as defined in the Constitution has not changed since its inception. Attempts to reinterpret this term to fit contemporary views must be met with careful scrutiny and a respect for the historical and legal context that shaped its original meaning. By doing so, we honor the vision of the Founding Fathers and maintain the constitutional fidelity that is the cornerstone of our republic.

About the Author:

Ron Bouchard is a Strategic Interventionist, Freedom Strategist, Expert in Constitutional and Fundamental Law, speaker, trainer, and author. As a co-founder of WeThePeople2.us, he contributes to advancing education on history, common law, and freedom advocacy. With a deep-rooted passion for these subjects, Ron offers thoughtful analysis and guidance on lawful and moral issues, including the sanctity of life. His insights are informed by his extensive study of history and his role as a dedicated advocate for constitutional principles.

If you want to help defend the Constitution, sign the notice below.

Call to Action: As a concerned citizen, it’s your duty to safeguard the principles that define our nation. This Lawful Notification of Constitutional Ineligibility and Maladministration regarding Kamala Devi Harris’s presidential candidacy is a call to action for all Americans to unite in defense of our Consitutional Republic. By signing this notice, you join a nationwide movement to hold our government officials accountable to the supreme law of the land—the Constitution. Our government derives its power from the people, and it is our right to ensure that no one, including those in the highest offices, acts outside the bounds of their constitutional authority. Kamala Harris, by her actions and ineligibility as defined by the 14th Amendment, has vacated her office and forfeited all associated benefits. We, the people, demand adherence to the Constitution and the removal of those who violate its principles. Join us in this peaceful, lawful assertion of our rights and responsibilities. Sign today and help restore the rule of law and the integrity of our government.

The Unchanging Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’: A Constitutional Perspective
Scroll to top

Foundations of Justice


This will close in 20 seconds