Those discussing the phrase “natural born citizen” in the debate if McCain qualified to run for president under that phrase haven’t investigated to find what that phrase meant to the founders of the United States..
Law, like theological questions, uses phrases that those without experience may reinterpret literally to bolster their own beliefs or agendas. Hence the right wing sites that hyperventillate that a man born of military parents on a military base on US territory isn’t “natural born”..
But this brings up the question: Why did the founders use the phrase “Natural born citizen” rather than the phrase “a person born in the United States”..
The 14th amendment did extend citizenship to those born or naturalized withint the United States, to emphasize that blacks and Native Americans were indeed citizens, but the part of the constitution that refers to the president uses the phrase “natural born citizen”.
Luckily, the law professors at the Volokh Conspiracy blog have done our homework for us, and dug out the 18th century legal papers that define that word under British law.
If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted to require that presidents be born in the United States, they could have done so. Instead, they invoked the then-standard idea of natural citizenship as reflecting natural allegiance to the king or the state.
Standard 18th century dictionaries and commentaries couldn’t have been clearer on this point. For example, Giles Jacob in The New Law-Dictionary (1743) and The Common Law Common-plac’d (1733) made clear who was an alien and who was a “natural born subjectâ€:
The Children of Ambassadors in a foreign Country, are natural born Subjects, and not Aliens. Id. at 22 (Eighteenth Century Collections Online)
They then go on to post a long discussion from Blackstone’s Commenteries, a book quite influential and used by many lawyers in early America to help them define what the law meant:
this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. ..
Blackstone explains why in much detail, and then goes on to explain why the law had evolved to include even children of merchants living overseas.
Professor Lindgren then wryly notes:
According to even the most technical meaning of “natural born” citizen in the 1780s, John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States, but George Washington and Thomas Jefferson may not have been (since they were born before 1776), though they would have been generally treated as such at the time.
If the right wing extremists want to continue pursuing the matter, they should be warned that two prominent Senators, McCaskill and Obama, have announced they plan to introduce legislation that allows all children born of military personnel stationed overseas to be included in the definition of “natural born”.
“Those who serve and sacrifice for their country, like John McCain and his father, deserve every honor and privilege that our nation can possibly provide, and that includes the ability to run for the highest office in the land,” Obama said in a statement.
———————-
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket, and she crossposted this on Podkayne’s blog.Â
5 users commented in " Natural Born Citizen? What the phrase means "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackFew problems with this post.
First the “right wing extremists” are for Ron Paul, not supporters of John McCain. Second they are hardly extremists, unless you are a Socialist or Communist. The self-congratulatory tone and threatening attitude are in the vein of propaganda NOT news.
Secondly you seem to not know, or care to know the Article in Question.
******* Art II Sect 1 ********
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;…
******************************
It seems the rocket scientist err “lawyers” at the (unreliable) Volokh Conspiracy have problems reading the Constitution. You see if you were a citizen at the time of adoption you were qualified. So much for their legal expertise.
Thirdly, the argument is idiotic. A citizen is not comparable to a subject. Subjects belong to a Crown, citizens do not belong to their country. That is the reason we have the U.S.
Fourth, until the 14th amendment those not here legally, or here as Ambassadors, or Military of a foreign power, or having allegiance to another nation, or not descendents of citizens; were NOT citizens. The argument was that Slaves were never citizens so they did not have the same rights as citizens. That was correct. Unfortunately the 14th Amendment extended our (citizen’s) rights to those who had not had it previously. Specifically illegal aliens, those born to subjucts of Crowns (why no one challenged it based upon this, is beyond me).
Now you can fly in for a day and pop out a kid and rake in the money, privileges without any pain or taxes paid. It does not however apply to persons born of citizens overseas.
You need to understand why the wording is the way it is. The founders did not want a foreign operative or sympathizer toppling America from the inside. Ironically this is exactly what the Dems are trying to do with Illegal Aliens and “anchor babies”.
Panama John – not a natural born Citizen of the U.S.
—————————————————-
I’m starting to feel bad about this for John McCain. He has come so far and to have the very nature of his citizenship to be questioned would be miserable, especially after heroic service. But he is seeking the one occupation that explicitly requires that the officeholder be a “natural born Citizen.” This can only be changed by an amendment that changes the Constitution from saying “natural born Citizen” to something that would include him as eligible, though he is a citizen by jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent).
In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be eligible to hold the office of President.
U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166]
Consider more details if you doubt the seriousness of this matter:
http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html
It is strange that so many people have trouble understanding the written word. Both of John McCain’s parents were United States citizens, that makes him a citizen of the United States by birth, i.e. natural born citizen. That is all that is required. So much for wishful thinking.
According to John Westlake’s 1904 book on International Law. Childern born on foriegn soil to English soldiers were NOT “natural born.” If the U.S. constitutional recognition of “natural born citizens” is an extension of the accepted English common law definition of “natural born subjects,” it would seem that John McCain is not qualified.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ecSDvP7vtUUC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=%2522natural+born+subject%2522++%2522jus+soli%2522&source=web&ots=b5x3GWSkT-&sig=4UJXIwfR51SsjT0bPGZrfsGX_x8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA213,M1
The reference to Blackstone is not appropriate in this case and has been thoroughly disputed and debunked.
The founders were referring to the natural law of nations as codified by Vatel – not British common law. The writers of the constitution clearly mention the value of Vatel’s work.
A “Natural Born Citizen” is clearly one born in the country to two citizen parents.
The founders placed all three presidential qualifications in the constitution to protect the new nation from as much foreign influence as possible. They knew full well that there would be some like John McCain who who’s patriotism would never be in question. Yet, they had to eliminate those patriots for the general welfare of the nation. They were thinking long term.
Our constitution is designed to protect the sovereignty of the people, the states, and the nation. Its structure sets up a system of checks and balances that has produced the greatest nation in the history of the world.
As our fathers before us, we must think long term, too. Our children can not afford for us to sacrifice their freedoms and liberty for passing vanities. With over 300 million natural born citizens surely we can find at least one who can read a teleprompter.
Leave A Reply