July 4, 1776, the Birth Day of the Nation and the Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2015
In defining an Article
II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from
the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves
defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding
period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and
Framers defined a natural born citizen. Such
an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A
Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a
Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a natural
born citizen.David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay wrote with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, “Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery,” J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's “History of the American Revolution” in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 essay, Ramsay explained:
The “United States” are a new nation, or political
society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those “British
subjects” in “America,” who were thrown out of royal protection by act of
parliament, passed in “December,” 1775.
A citizen of the “United States,” means a member of
this new nation. The principle of
government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character
of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin word, “sub”
and “jacio,” and means one who is “under” the power of another; but a citizen
is a “unit” of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far
equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within
himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as
another. In the eye of reason and
philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings,
and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right
original sovereignty.
Id. at 3. (emphasis in the original).
Here Ramsay described how the new nation came into
being from the revolution with Great Britain and that its new members were citizens
and not subjects. He then explained the “immense”
difference between a citizen and a subject.
Indeed, citizens were masters of their own destiny, all equal to each
other, and under no one.
Then he went on to explain how one became a citizen,
stating:
The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring
this distinguishing privilege.
1st.
By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of
independence.
2d. By taking
an oath of fidelity to some one of the “United States,” agreeable to law.
3d. By tacit
consent and acquiescence.
4th.
By birth or inheritance.
5th.
By adoption.
Id. at 4
(emphasis in the original).
He then explained how one acquired citizenship through
each one of his categories. As to the 1st
category, these included all those persons who adhered to the American
Revolution by being a party to the Declaration of Independence through which “’a
nation was born in a day.’” The 2nd
and 3rd categories included those who took an oath of allegiance to
the American cause, or upon reaching the age of majority just accepted the new
states and continued to reside there under their protection.
Ramsay then went on to describe the 4th
category persons who the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called the “natural
born Citizens.” Here is what he
said:
4th.
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born
since the declaration of independence, for obvious reasons: no man can be born a citizen of a state or
government, which did not exist at the time of this birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the
children of those who have taken a part in the last revolution; but this is
confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves
citizens. Those who died before the
revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but of
subjects, which they themselves possessed.
If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have
adhered to the king or congress. Their
children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of “British subjects,”
but not of “American citizens.”
5th.
Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption,
or naturalization, agreeably to law. The
citizenship of such must be dated from the time of their adoption.
Id. at 6 (emphasis in the original).
Then Ramsay drew these conclusions: "The citizenship of no man could be previous
to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to 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, from inheritance, belong 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 6-7 (emphasis in the original).
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 that followed 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 of those 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. We can see why the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered "Citizens of the United States," which included themselves, to be eligible to be President. He also explained that persons born in any country
may have acquired citizenship by adoption or naturalization, telling us that in
order to be a natural born citizen one had to be born in the United
States. Ramsay did not use the clause
“natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright
which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he
defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born citizen,"
"native," and "indigenes," all terms that were then used
interchangeably.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined a natural born citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a person was one born in the country to citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the “natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generations of citizens, who were either descendants of the original citizens or children of naturalized citizens, born in the United States, who 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.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay, provided to me by an anonymous source in 2010 while I was handling the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress case, is one of the most important pieces of evidence which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a natural born citizen has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of “natives, or indigenes,” or who the Framers called natural born citizens); Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (relied upon the law of nations definition of citizenship and not the English common law definition of a natural born subject) (Daniel, J., concurring) (specifically citing and quoting Vattel and his Section 212 for the definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” and not the English common law); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of natural born citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all natural born citizens" are "citizens of the United States" but not all "citizens of the United States" are natural born citizens. It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have.
De facto President Barrack Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (regardless of where that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, 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. Hence, Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen, for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States, is not a natural born citizen because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too is not a natural born citizen. He has therefore held the civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief contrary to the Constitution and therefore without any constitutional legitimacy.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined a natural born citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a person was one born in the country to citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the “natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generations of citizens, who were either descendants of the original citizens or children of naturalized citizens, born in the United States, who 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.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay, provided to me by an anonymous source in 2010 while I was handling the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress case, is one of the most important pieces of evidence which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a natural born citizen has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of “natives, or indigenes,” or who the Framers called natural born citizens); Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (relied upon the law of nations definition of citizenship and not the English common law definition of a natural born subject) (Daniel, J., concurring) (specifically citing and quoting Vattel and his Section 212 for the definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” and not the English common law); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of natural born citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all natural born citizens" are "citizens of the United States" but not all "citizens of the United States" are natural born citizens. It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have.
De facto President Barrack Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (regardless of where that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, 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. Hence, Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen, for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States, is not a natural born citizen because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too is not a natural born citizen. He has therefore held the civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief contrary to the Constitution and therefore without any constitutional legitimacy.
For a demonstration as to why Senator Ted Cruz,
Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens
and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be elected President, see Mario Apuzzo, “Senator
Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate
in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are
All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President,
accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
.
So,
David Ramsay told us that a natural born citizen was born on July 4, 1776. Today is July 4, 2015, or 239 years since
that birth. Happy Birth Day natural born
citizen of the United States of America.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright
© 2015
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.
All
Rights Reserved