Emer de Vattel – CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

The “Natural Born Citizen” Term is Neither Confusing, Ambiguous, Sexist, Racist, or Overly Restrictive if One’s Mind is Open to the Truth and Not Pettifogging on the Term

The “Natural Born Citizen” Term is Neither Confusing, Ambiguous, Sexist, Racist, or Overly Restrictive if One’s Mind is Open to the Truth and Not Pettifogging on the Term | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Retired)

Click Image For More Fact Finding and Truth

(May 5th, 2023) — The Vattel “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” in various editions (1758/1775/1797) has a clear and succinct key sentence definition of “natural born Citizen” in Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, 2nd sentence of Vattel’s legal treatise that was written in French, the diplomatic language of that time of the revolution, and translated into English. That sentence states: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens“. Those facts and circumstances at one’s birth give one internationally recognized and U.S. law recognized sole allegiance status and loyalty duties at birth to one nation and only one nation. And only such a person can now be constitutionally the President and Commander in Chief of our military per the founders and framers original intent when they put that national security term into the presidential eligibility clause for future generations.

That legal treatise by Vattel was used by the Founders and Framers to justify the revolution and to write our founding documents. And they got the term “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s treatise. John Jay who was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers and also became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and a fervent user of Vattel’s legal treatise in various negotiations and legal activities for our new nation during the founding period suggested that term for the presidential eligibility clause to George Washington and the Constitutional Convention agreed to it in 1787 because it guaranteed persons who would become the Commander in Chief of our military forces in the future after the founding generation was gone would be persons born with sole allegiance at birth. And that definition of who is a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards is neither confusing, ambiguous, sexist, racist, nor overly restrictive for our nation to comply with. The laws of nature have been the truth since nature’s creation. The definition stated by Vattel for who is a “natural born Citizen” was true in the 18^th century. It was true in the 19^th century. And the definition held in the 20th century and today in the 21^st century with all the progressive man-made laws regarding the independence of basic citizenship for men and women in marriage as long as both parents are by birth themselves U.S. Citizens or if immigrants they later chose to naturalize and become U.S. Citizens before their child is born in the USA, they will procreate a “natural born Citizen” of the United States who will be eligible to be the President or Vice President. A “natural born Citizen” is at the minimum a second-generation American, fully marinated in the culture of America. And that law of nature definition will be true as long as man and nature survive. The laws of nature relating to the “without any doubt” membership in a tribe, country, or nation have not changed. Natural Law still defines the birth circumstances for a “natural born Citizen” (nbC) of a country, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance at birth to the United States of America without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sex. One only has to open one’s mind to the truth.

All the sundry political problems created by the modern Progressive Movement as to nbC’s true meaning would dissipate if we just simply stay true to the laws of nature and Natural Law for that key term in the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution. It is only men of dubious reasoning and political objectives who attempt to redefine a Natural Law term in ways to suit their current agenda that cause the ambiguity that leads to these divisive sexism and racism charges.

One of the many ongoing issues and problems in various legal court case decisions and writings of statutory naturalization laws and acts during the history of the United States has been the Common Law and Statutory Law by these bodies of men designating who is a Citizen of the United States and who is not at this time or that time. But the laws of nature do not change. Only man’s egotistical nature thinks he can change them to suit his current objectives.

The Constitution of the United States gave Congress the power to create and adopt laws to naturalize new citizens into our new nation, whether at birth or later in life after their birth. And Congress has repeatedly done so starting with the egregiously erroneous first attempt with the 1790 Naturalization Act which was shortly repealed as it was determined to have violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to create a “natural born Citizen” out of persons born outside the United States, who per the laws of nature they were not. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions had to rule in various cases and controversies as to who was and was not a Citizen of the United States.

At various times in this country’s history Common Law decisions were made such as the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) decision. In that case in particular the U.S. Supreme Court infected by the deep-south appeasing temperament of the court in regards to race in that time made a decision that prolonged racism in this nation. At other times Congress has passed Statutory Laws that declared persons a Citizen of the United States based on the sex of one parent such as naturalization laws that only recognized a child being a U.S. Citizen if the father was a U.S. Citizen, or removed the citizenship of the United States for women who married a foreign national. See the Expatriation Act of 1907 and MacKenzie v Hare (1915) U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thus at various times in dealing with political parties and people’s miss-informed opinions as to who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces, various charges of racism and sexism have been bantered about in the political debates over many decades.

If a person was not born in the USA an obvious question arose many times. Is that person a Citizen of the United States? And in some such cases, various derogatory charges were made and thrown out against those arguing the person certainly was not a U.S. Citizen by those saying the person was a U.S. Citizen. And at various times it was argued they were a citizen only if their father was a citizen and that father had lived in the United States for some period of time before their child was born overseas. And given this rule or law only applied if the child’s father was a citizen, the charge of sexism was made. And likewise, if a child was born in the USA but both parents were not U.S. Citizens, especially if the father was not, the sexism charge was also made and thrown out by those arguing the person certainly was a U.S. Citizen against those saying the person was not.

And of course, the issues of citizenship and racism in the 19^th century are well known. The country had to go through a Civil War. Also, a Civil Rights Act (1866) was passed and the 14^th Amendment (1868) was made to the U.S. Constitution to make it clear once and for all and eliminate any doubts and opposition to citizenship for those who were at the time freed slaves.

We of course should note that over the years there have been many attempts by the Democratic Party of the deep-south using the KKK and Jim Crow laws to deny non-white people their full rights as U.S. Citizens. In those examples, we see real racism being injected into politics by a major political party for many generations, i.e., the Democratic Party well into the 20^th century.

A lot of those inflammatory racism and sexism charges were mostly being thrown about and debated regarding who is a basic Citizen of the United States. That was being done to try and keep people from being able to vote. But that type of emotionally and highly charged inflammatory rhetoric gets even dicier when it comes to the citizenship term and the question is raised, who is a “natural born Citizen”? And especially when a national political campaign is in process and questions arise as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces (and also subsequently per the 12^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution who can be the Vice-President). At such times the inflammatory name-calling, charges, and counter-charges get amped up to extreme levels.

During national high office political campaigns and/or the run-up to them, we see over the decades many politically motivated, progressive movement, academic “scholarly” papers were written ignoring any type of enforcement of the true and original-intent meaning of the natural law term “natural born Citizen”. Instead, they are usually attacking non-natural law false arguments being made as to who is a “natural born Citizen” and throwing out charges of one side or the other being sexist, racist, or just too restrictive and unfair. And these progressive academic “scholars” working with one major political party or the other, write their lengthy papers as to why a certain person who was not born in the USA, but was born overseas to a U.S. Citizen father, or a certain person who was born in the USA, but whose father was not a U.S. Citizen father, surely must be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” because to do otherwise is sexist.

They write these papers to assuage the American electorate who are rightly very concerned about the innate divided allegiance of such a person born with dual or triple citizenship, i.e., divided loyalty requirements and allegiance at birth, being selected as a candidate of a major political party for election to the office of President and Commander in Chief of our military.

These “scholarly” papers, which are just cloaked politically agenda-driven pieces to give a constitutional pass to one candidate or another, are then used by the political parties, the candidate themselves, the major mainstream media, and elected government officials and other officials to sell this politically attractive candidate to the public, even though many people are very concerned about the person’s non-sole allegiance at birth due to their being under current U.S. laws, a dual citizen at birth (Barack Hussein Obama) or even in some cases a triple citizen at birth (Ted Cruz). And thus because of not sticking to the laws of nature for a term with the word “natural” in it as an adjective, all the political angst, debate, and turmoil occurs.

Thus, in all the “scholarly” writings, debates, and news stories as to who is or who is not a “natural born Citizen”, why don’t they fully disclose and report on the true original-intent meaning and purpose of that term in our U.S. Constitution, that is, a person born in the country of parents who were both citizens (born or naturalized) of the country when their child was born. A child born under those circumstances is “naturally” considered to be unquestionably and without any doubt a U.S. Citizen and is of course in fact a “natural born Citizen” per the laws of nature and Natural Law. See the holdings in U.S. Supreme Court cases Minor v Happersett (1875) and Perkins v Elg (1939). In any established nation the largest kind of citizen is the “natural born Citizen”. That kind of citizen is by far a super-majority of the citizens and thus there is a large pool of people from which to choose our President and Commander in Chief. Thus to require the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces to be a “natural born Citizen” in the true original meaning and intent of that term is not overly restrictive.

We do not have to seek or consider politically attractive persons who may be the first this or that in relationship to race, color, or gender just to pander to the Progressive Movement and arguments of fairness, which in doing so violates the true original intents and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution. The “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution is a national security term to insure sole allegiance at birth status for the person who would be sworn into the highest office in the land. There are plenty of “natural born Citizen” persons from which to choose a candidate. They are the three-leaf clovers of citizens, not the four-leaf clover kind of citizens. They are the common variety and easily found, not the rare kind.

Thus it is time to get back to basics and the truth about the term “natural born Citizen” and in doing that eliminate all concerns and charges of sexism and racism in choosing our candidates for election to President and Commander in Chief. Stop all the nonsense and unnecessary conflict caused by picking candidates with questionable claims to being a “natural born Citizen”. In some cases, questions are raised as to whether they are even U.S. Citizens at all. Some candidates are closer to being a non-Citizen anchor baby (Kamala Harris) than they will ever be to being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States per the true original definition in Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law (1758/1775/1797) and the original intent and purpose the founders and framers used that term in the presidential eligibility clause. And again, that purpose was to ensure that only a person born with sole allegiance (not a dual citizen or triple citizen at birth) would ever be allowed to gain access to the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation, original citizens, was gone.

If the reader is in any doubt about the reason and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause, see John Jay’s letter of Jul 1787 about future foreign influence national security concerns addressed to General George Washington the president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia PA. And in Washington’s letter in response to John Jay, he agreed to his suggestion to put the “natural born Citizen” term into our Constitution to help ensure the continuing future of our nation by not allowing persons with foreign influence at birth from gaining access to and control of the highest political executive power and military power office in our government, the President and Commander in Chief.

All we have to do to see the consequences of not obeying the original intent and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution is to see what has happened to our nation by electing and allowing to be sworn in a non-natural born Citizen, a person born with foreign influence on them since birth, a person born with dual citizenship and dual allegiance at birth, i.e., Barack Hussein Obama. He was born with dual allegiance, i.e., a British Subject via his non-U.S. Citizen, a non-U.S. immigrant, anti-American Marxist, and Kenyan British Subject father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Barack Hussein Obama II/Jr. also holds a claim to basic U.S. Citizen via his claimed birth in Hawaii to his U.S. Citizen teenage mother. But of course, some of those facts have been challenged due to the early life narratives promulgated by Obama himself and later by operatives directly and indirectly for the Hillary Clinton campaign. But he is not now nor has he ever been a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama is now effectively a behind-the-scenes puppet master National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC) of Joe Biden. Obama is doing to our nation and system of government what the founders and framers feared most if and when a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance at birth got control of the highest office in our new form of government. Obama, under the foreign influence of his dual citizenship birth, his subsequent early life living and early schooling overseas, and his “dreams” from his anti-American Marxist father related to us in his book “Dreams From My Father” is doing to the United States what his non-Citizen father wanted to happen to the United States. He wanted the United States as a world economic and political power brought down and especially wanted our military power brought down. We are now experiencing the results of Obama’s implementing that agenda with two full terms usurping the office of President and Commander in Chief and now in a de-facto 3rd term totally controlling the incompetent and mentally declining Joe Biden from behind the scenes as the National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC).

It is time to return to the non-sexist, non-racial true, and original law of nature definition of a “natural born Citizen” for the person that would hold the highest national office as intended by the founders and framers of our nation and Constitution. We must only elect and allow to be sworn into office as President and Commander in Chief of our military a person born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to our country, i.e., a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens) of the country when their child was born. The survival of our Republic and Constitution demands it!

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

2. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

3. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal-natural-born-citizen-nbc-obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-the-usa-2/ or http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

4. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

5. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

6. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

7. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

8. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.kerchner.com/videos/natural-born-citizen-part-1-by-dr-herb-titus.mp4 and http://www.kerchner.com/videos/natural-born-citizen-part-2-by-dr-herb-titus.mp4

9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

10. Read online or download and save dozens of historical papers and articles written over time, some over 200 years ago, describing what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States is to constitutional standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards

Redux: Vattel – Law of Nations Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30. Of the Support of the Constitution and Obedience to the Laws

Redux: Vattel – Law of Nations Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30. Of the Support of the Constitution and Obedience to the Laws

Click on image for more on the importance of Vattel’s writings to the founders of our country and framers of our Constitution

I originally posted the quote (in italics further down in this article) from Emer de Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” in the BlogSpot blog of the now deceased Attorney Mario Apuzzo back in June 2009 and then also in my WordPress blog. I re-post Vattel’s words and revisit the subject again as a reminder and warning about what is happening to our country, our constitution, and the rule of law.

The disregard of the rule of law and the abrogation of the true original-intent meaning and purpose of a key term in our U.S. Constitution the supreme law of our land as to whom can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military (and VP) has led to a very serious crisis in our nation with a cognitively challenged puppet in the Oval Office on a part-time basis and the rest of his time in a basement in Delaware with a culturally anti-American usurper who was unconstitutionally elected and sworn in twice still pulling the strings, making the decisions, and giving the orders behind the scenes in effect in a 3rd term, leading from behind as the “National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC), i.e., Obama. And with the NCOinC effectively in charge of our country, enabled by the mainstream media and corrupt judicial system, things are getting more bizarre and dangerous every week. The pernicious suppression of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people.

If this willful attack on our unalienable rights given to us by our Creator as declared in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution continues, the complete destruction of public tranquility will soon be entailed. And it appears that is what the far, far-left anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist Marxists pulling the puppet strings behind the curtain want. As Dan Bongino said recently in one of his podcasts the far, far left is trying to provoke and will use asymmetric violence to do it.

By asymmetric violence Dan Bongino means they can and will get violent and they will get away with it. If arrested at all, they will soon be released by the sympathetic judicial system and not prosecuted. And if during their violence they provoke a physical response to their violence by someone they are attacking and/or militantly provoking, that person will get arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is the goal of asymmetric violence by far-left organized street thugs like Antifa, to provoke a response to entrap their target(s) and then use the law and law-fare to prosecute or financially ruin their target(s). Dan Bongino said to be careful in the coming days. We must not fall for their planned trap(s). But like all such evil people and tyrants in history, at some point, they will go too far. Let us hope this is all resolved in the 2024 election before it is totally too late to save our Republic, which is what Benjamin Franklin said the constitutional framers of our new U.S. Constitution have created … if we can keep it.

See these words by the legal scholar Emer de Vattel from his writings about Natural Law in the last half of the 18th century which apply equally well today.

“A Republic Ma’am If We Can Keep It” – Benjamin Franklin (1787)

” … The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.”

The U.S. Constitution is the glue that holds this nation of diverse immigrants and their descendants together. Without it, this nation, this republic is lost and will end up on the trash heap of history. The 2024 election will decide whether we still have a constitutional republic and a constitution that is the supreme law of the land and that it is enforced, or if we will totally lose it all forever.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
http://www.kerchner.com/books/catalog.htm
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

P.S. We are a nation of immigrants. But Obama’s father was not one! Barack Hussein Obama is the first defacto President and Commander in Chief whose father was never an immigrant to this country. Obama’s father was a total foreigner and only briefly sojourned here on a student VISA. But per his son, he passed along his Marxist dreams to bring down the United States’ power on the world stage, especially our military power. Obama is the son of a non-U.S. Citizen, anti-American, and total foreigner only sojourning briefly in the USA. Barack Hussein Obama is exactly the type of person, i.e., a person born without sole allegiance to the USA, that the founders and farmers did not want to ever be permitted to gain the office of President and Commander in Chief of our military which is the WHY they put the natural security term “natural born Citizen” into the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution. Obama II/Jr is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and thus was never constitutionally eligible for the office he usurped for two terms. Obama II/Jr was not born with “unity of citizenship and sole allegiance” to the USA. Obama was born a British Subject and later became a Citizen of Kenya. He considered himself to be a Citizen of the World first and a Citizen of the USA secondarily. We are reaping the whirlwind for allowing the sowing of the wind of the usurper Obama and his “Dreams From His Father” agenda to gain control of our nation.

See below for other suggested reading and viewing regarding the “natural born Citizen” key national security term in the Presidential Eligibility Clause of our United States Constitution:

2. A chart that lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

3. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as being a “natural born Citizen”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal-natural-born-citizen-nbc-obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-the-usa-2/ or http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

5. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

7. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

Natural Born Citizen – Key Birth Status Definition, SCOTUS Fact Findings, and SCOTUS Holdings

Natural Born Citizen – Key Birth Status Definition,
SCOTUS Fact Findings,and SCOTUS Holdings

by: CDR Charles F. Kerchner Jr. (Ret)

Question: What birth status facts made a person under the principles of the Laws of Nature and Natural Law a “natural born citizen” in the last half of the 18^th century, which covered the time frame of the founding of the United States of America and the writing of our founding documents?

Answer: Those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Source: Legal Treatise on Natural Law, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”, Emer de Vattel, (1758 in French / 1797 correctly translated French into English), Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, key sentence defining a natural-born citizen per Natural Law.

Question: What birth status facts in an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision and holding declared who was a natural born citizen without any doubt?

Answer: Children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. “… it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Source: U.S. Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874/1875).

Question: What birth status facts in a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision and holding per its findings of facts about Miss Elg’s birth status declared that Miss Elg was not only a citizen of the United States by/at birth but was in fact at birth a “natural born citizen” of the United States by/at her birth?

Answer: Miss Elg was born in the United States of parents who were both naturalized citizens when Miss Elg was born in the United States. Miss Elg was “… declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States“. Source: U.S. Supreme Court, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), Fifth holding of a five part holding in that case.

# # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

5. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

7. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

My Translation and Analysis of a Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels”

My Translation from Emer de Vattel’s
“The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law“
Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 – “Des citoyens et naturels.”
Analysis and Translation of the Key Sentence
Regarding Natural Born Citizens

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Ret)

The key sentence in the original 1758 French edition written by Vattel:

“Les naturels, ou indigénes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens.”

First let’s do a direct translation of the key sentence using this online French to English site:

https://translate.yandex.com/?source_lang=fr&target_lang=en&text=Les%20naturels%2C%20ou%20indigenes%2C%20sont%20ceux%20qui%20sont%20nes%20dans%20le%20pays%2C%20de%20parents%20citoyens

The key sentence translated to English by that online translation site is:

“The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.”

Further, in trying to see how the key sentence evolved in various English translations, we see that if one substitutes a synonym for indigenous which is natives we get the below sentence. But be forewarned, the word natives is a very confusing term today when taken out of the context it was used in. The word “natives” brings to mind two very different meanings to modern readers. And it becomes even more confusing, when some people (some on purpose to mislead) misquote the key sentence with out the ‘s’ on the word “natives”, falsely making it “native” and then try to argue it meant solely where one was born without reference to the citizenship of one’s parents. We must really look to what Vattel meant the words to mean back when he wrote them. And he told us. In the sentence Vattel used the two nouns, he defined what he meant by those two nouns immediately thereafter in the very same sentence. But continuing with the evolution of the key sentence, and using the synonym for indigenous, which is “natives”, for the online direct translation we get:

The natural, or natives, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.

Now for the 1760 English translation edition: If we compare that literal in-line word after word translation done online to the translated wording of the key sentence in the 1760 edition, we see the translator/editor used two ambiguous English word synonyms, and switched them around in order, and then subsequently in error, did not use the proper English word for the French word Vattel used, i.e., “naturels”, which is “naturals” or the “natural born” in the context of discussing citizenship and allegiance to one’s country in section 212. Thus, the editor/translator changed the word “natural” to “natives” and used the synonym for “natives”, i.e., “indigenes” in the key sentence in 1760. Thus 1760 English edition key sentence reads:

“The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

A historical research note is provided at this point in the translation process: Many of the Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington and key Framers such as Madison, Franklin, and Washington, as well as key “influencers” of that time such as John Jay, were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of the day and thus they used the French editions of Vattel, i.e., reading it in the original source language which learned individuals such as our Founders and Framers preferred to do, i.e., the 1758 French edition, but also three copies of the newly edited and printed 1775 French edition sent that year by Dumas to Benjamin Franklin. The founders and framers were reading the French word “naturels” when they read the key sentence in section 212 of Vattel’s treatise. And they knew what it meant because Vattel told them in the very same sentence. And they knew it meant “natural born” in English.

Here is an example to prove they knew what “naturels” meant in English. In 1781 it is absolutely documented in history that the founders and framers knew the French word “naturels” clearly meant “natural born” in English. This is years before the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787. That fact is documented and found in the records of the Continental Congress where a 1781 treaty correspondence document from the Minister of France was translated into English for the records of the Continental Congress. In that document the French word “naturels” was translated to the English term “natural born”. For the 1781 full treaty correspondence in French and English see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born-before-constitution-was-written/

The 1797 English translation edition: In the 1797 English translation the nouns used by Vattel are also switched around from their positions in the French sentence. But the French word “naturels” was correctly translated and used. Thus the key sentence nouns “naturels” and “citoyens” are correctly translated into English as to Vattel’s meaning and intent in the key sentence as the term “natural-born citizens”. Thus in this English translated edition the key sentence is clearly, correctly, and properly translated into English. And the key sentence once again clearly defines what the nouns meant within the very sentence they are used. And it has been that way in English translations ever since. It is also should be considered that the translation was corrected and made clearer in the 1797 edition as to what Vattel was saying in his legal treatise of 1758 in French because that key term in English, i.e., ”natural born” was being used since 1781 in English in international legal and diplomatic affairs and also in the 1787 U.S. Constitution, i.e., “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause, and it was understood by that time that the prior English translations were poorly done and a re-do was needed.

Switching around noun positions in translations often is done for a clearer meaning translation into the target language. Very good interpreters do this on the fly. By doing that and correctly translating Vattel’s meaning and wording from French to English of that key sentence of Section 212 as is provided in the 1797 corrected English edition of Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” we see the below key sentence therein:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

And that English translation and wording as shown above of the key sentence in Vattel’s treatise has been recognized as the correct one from 1797 to now and was even paraphrased with that meaning for the term “natural born Citizen” without any doubt in the U.S. Supreme Court holding for the case of Minor v Happersett (1875). Again, repeating the key sentence again after this paragraph that is how that key sentence read in 1797 and reads now to this day. And it clearly defines the meaning of the word “natives” and the term “natural-born citizens” as used in that sentence in the very same sentence they are used in. So again, the meaning of the nouns used in the key sentence is defined therein and is very clear as to what Vattel meant in his legal treatise for that key sentence when he wrote it in French in 1758 and when it was correctly translated to English in 1797:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

And historically we know that John Jay, a key Founder and who was one of the writers of the Federal Papers and later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was a descendant of French Huguenots, who was fluent in French, and was quite familiar with Vattel’s treatise as he used it in legal and diplomatic negotiations, thus sourced and translated Vattel’s French to the English term “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s treatise and sent that term via a letter to George Washington in July of 1787 hinting/suggesting that the term “natural born Citizen” be added to the presidential eligibility clause of our new Constitution being written under the leadership of George Washington who was the President of the Constitutional Convention convened at that time in Philadelphia PA. The strong hint/suggestion was made by John Jay as a national security clause to prevent anyone born with foreign influence on them from ever gaining command of our military forces since under the new Constitution the President would also be the Commander in Chief of our military. George Washington agreed with John Jay per his return letter to Jay. Washington then submitted it to the appropriate committee and it was put into the new Constitution with a grandfather clause added for then existing original Citizens, the current generation who of course were not born to U.S. Citizen Parents, and thus they were not a “natural born Citizen” of the new United States. This natural security clause was intended for future generations who of course would not have been not part of the revolution, i.e., when the founding generation was gone, to prevent anyone born with foreign influence on them, i.e., a dual or triple citizen at birth from gaining control of our military forces. The Founders and Framers by adding this term wanted future persons in the new singular and most powerful office for our new nation, that of President and Commander in Chief, once they were gone, to be a person born with sole allegiance to the USA at and by birth for national security reasons. For a copy of the original letter by John Jay and a clearer side-by-side transcription see: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington-original+transcription.jpg

In a full reading of Vattel’s Section 212, we should note that the first sentence in section 212, which is immediately before the key sentence focused on in my paper about the key sentence, says:

“The citizens are members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, the equally participate in its advantages.”

Then the key sentence analyzed and translated in this paper is found:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

And following that key sentence, Vattel goes on to say in the rest of section 212:

“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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequences of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

For more of Vattel’s legal treatise writings on citizenship and Natural Law see: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

# # #

To download and get your own personal copy of the above published paper in a printable PDF format, or to make copies to share with others, click here.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

5. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

7. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts