A Point in Time - Understanding “Natural Born Citizen":
By Mike
Voeltz
To
understand Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4, one must simply look at it through the
prism of the time it was written. At the time of the ratification of the
Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets
of “citizens” in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets
were the citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or
those born of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of
Independence.
From
the American perspective the ante nati, the time when those born in the
colonies were British, and adhered to perpetual allegiance to the Crown, ended
on July 4, 1776. The British perspective is that the Treaty of Peace, ending
the Revolutionary War, in 1783, ended the ante nati. (28 US 99, 121). The
Treaty of Peace released all British subjects from perpetual allegiance who
were resident in the colonies and adhered to the Revolution (they were given
until 1789 to leave if they desired), and the Americans adopted law of nations
or “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” on July 4, 1776.
The
case of Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), only
41 years after ratification, illustrates that point in time of 1789. The reason
that case is annotated to Article 2 section 1, clause 4, by the 43rd Congress, in the
Revised Statutes 1873, is because of that illustration. It proves that
Congress, in 1873, thought that natural born Citizens were born in the US of 2
US Citizen parents. The clause has never been amended, and must mean exactly
what it did then. Any blurring, clouding, or obfuscation of the meaning of
natural born Citizen is thwarted by the simple logic of examining the point in
time the clause was ratified.
According
to the holding of the majority in Sailors v. Trustees (1830), John Inglis, even
if born within the United States after the Declaration of Independence, would
have been considered a British subject, because he followed the election of his
father, Charles, as a British subject, and was too young to make that election.
“The facts disclosed in this case, then,
lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of
Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his
native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the
condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and
fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act
disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.” 28 US 99, 124
“2.
If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the
British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making
any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his
father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the
termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British
subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.” Id., 126
John
Inglis stood on the same ground as Barack H. Obama stands today, born in
America (supposedly) as a British subject, of a British subject father. John
Inglis certainly was not a natural born Citizen at that point in time; he could
not even inherit land in America, much less be President. Likewise, Barack H.
Obama, born British in 1961 is certainly not natural born by the holding of
Inglis.
In
1789 only two sets of US Citizens existed, and there was no Congressional
naturalization law yet. Those that were resident in the colonies in 1789, who
were either born in the ante nati, in the colonies, as British subjects, or who
had immigrated and resided prior to 1789, were naturalized by the ratification
of the Constitution as US Citizens. Those born of those new US Citizens since
7/4/1776 were the natural born Citizens, needing no naturalization. The first
natural born Citizens were only 13 years old at the time of ratification, so
the “citizens at the time of the ratification” were grandfathered in to eligibility.
ALL US citizens, resident in the colonies in 1789, were eligible to be
President, and NONE of them were British. Of course some of them were born
British, but were released from that perpetual allegiance by adherence to the
Revolution, and by the Treaty of Peace, 1783, and were grandfathered in to
eligibility by Article 2. Barack H. Obama was born 172 years too late to take
advantage of that clause. The Inglis
case illustrates perfectly that point in time when law of nations, and the
right of election, replaced British Common Law and perpetual allegiance to the
Crown. The fact that Congress annotates Article 2, section 1, clause 4 with
Inglis tells us that the thought that “no one knows” what natural born meant,
or that it was “not defined” is utter nonsense.
“British
doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America
after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our
doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British
government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the
character of American citizens.
This
right of election must necessarily exist in all revolutions like ours, and is
so well established by adjudged cases that it is entirely unnecessary to enter
into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is
to determine the time when the election should have been made. Vattel, B. 1,
ch. 3.” Id., 122
“The
law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity
and natural justice.” The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, 297 (1814)
Justice
Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, cites Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” that, "'British
subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown…
'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British
subject at the moment of his birth.'” 169 US 649, 658
“Citizens”
are not “subjects” (isn’t that what the Revolutionary War was about?), and have
the “right of election” according to the Inglis case. The new US Citizens threw
off perpetual allegiance, which in the eyes of the laws of nations is the bane
of all freedom loving people.
Natural
Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in
the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of
that rule of law. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231
“The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled
by the Revolution”. Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2,
pg. 1280 (William Cushing served on the first Supreme Court).
There is no British Common Law in America. It ended in
1776. If the right of election supplanted perpetual allegiance at that point,
then to say that “natural born Citizen” is the same as “natural born subject”
is a nonsensical lie.
1 comment:
Well done, and simple enough for a politician, Nancy Pelosi and assorted 5th graders to grasp. Biden, not so much.
Post a Comment