Action

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: 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. 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. 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. 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