Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RFC/U (Sempi)

I have created a Request for Comment regarding Sempi (talk · contribs). You can find it here. I encourage all interested parties to read it and (if appropriate) add your comments to it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ankeny

Re this edit and this revert, that depends on how you read it, I think. As I read it, the trial court dismissed without ruling on the merits, and the appeals court upheld the dismissal. The appeals court ruling can be seen here. According to the appeals court ruling, the dismissal was under rule 12(B)(1) (Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter). The appeals court ruling also mentions rule 12(B)(6) (Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17;) -- see this.

I haven't seen the trial court ruling, but the appeals court discusses that in some detail. Apparently, Obama's birth location was not an issue. From the discussion in the appeals court ruling, "With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President."

I think the unstated point of the reverted edit was probably that the proceedings at the trial court level did not get far enough for Discovery (law) (the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions) to take place. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re this further edit, not as I read it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is an adjudication on the merits. (Discovery is unnecessary because there are no facts that would help the claim.) Which is why Volokh captioned his blog posting about this case, "Indiana Court of Appeals Rejects Claim That 'Because His Father Was a Citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama Is [Not a Natural Born Citizen and Therefore] Constitutionally Ineligible to Assume the Office of the President'" (emphasis added). --Weazie (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah? I'm not a lawyer, but I see Justice Scalia writing in 2001 in Semtek Intern. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin,[1] saying that the original connotation of an 'on the merits' adjudication is one that actually passes directly on the substance of [a particular] claim before the court. He goes on, "That connotation remains common to every jurisdiction of which we are aware." Scalia then quotes: "The prototyp[ical] [judgment on the merits is] one in which the merits of [a party's] claim are in fact adjudicated [for or] against the [party] after trial of the substantive issues". As I said, as I read the appeals court ruling, the trial court dismissed and the appeals court upheld the dismissal.

Also, I see in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41b, "(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. [...] Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits." (emphasis mine) As previously observed, the trial court's dismissal was under (Indiana) rule 12(B)(1) (Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter)[2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH (and Volokh is a lawyer). Footnote two of Ankeny: "Because we find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court's alternative grounds for dismissal." And from the second full paragraph: "On January 30, 2009, the Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging in part that 'the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'" Not 12(b)(1) [jurisdiction]; the Court of Appeals ruled on the merits. --Weazie (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Legislation and executive branch policy" section -- delete?

I think this article has been greatly improved by narrowing it to refer only to the natural born citizen clause (and not the more nebulous meaning of the phase "natural born citizen"). Having said that, I think the "legislation and executive branch policy" section is totally unnecessary as neither the legislature or the executive branches can alter the meaning of the constitutional clause. (I also think the section is poorly written.) Rather than just being bold and deleting it, can anyone make a case for attempting to salvage it? Weazie (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Going once, going twice.... --Weazie (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section is of little or no usefulness and should be removed. It doesn't deal with the topic of the "natural born citizen" clause anyway — even the bit about how the State Dept. doesn't claim that citizenship via statute is the same as being a "citizen for Constitutional purposes" simply means that someone can be a US citizen per an act of Congress even if the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause didn't apply (i.e., foreign-born children of American parentage). Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Madison quote.

This article is quoted extensively here. Some of the comments state that Madison is being quoted out-of-context (that he was referring to citizens, not natural born citizens). Worth another look? --Weazie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the (primary) source cited for the Madison quote, that would appear to be correct. A challenge had been made to seating an elected member of Congress, based on the allegation that he had not been a citizen for seven years. "Natural born" citizenship did not come into play. Of course, this conclusion is original research, but on the other hand, so is the inclusion pf Madison's quote in the article. Move to strike. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Madisons quote is in the context of an Argument by Ramsay that his political opponent was not born a citizen and had not been in the U.S. for seven years and therefor could not meet the Constitutional requirements to be a member of the House of Representatives. Congress found that the fact he (Smith, Ramsays opponent) was born in South Carolina meant he was indeed born a citizen and therefor had more than the required 7 years of citizenship. This seems relevant to me. Mystylplx (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point that Madison's quote supports the the position that being a citizen "at birth" is sufficient for U.S. citizenship, a position mirrored by all contemporary opinions regarding natural-born citizenship. The link between these two concepts, however, may be verging into WP:OR. --Weazie (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Know any any sources, contemporary or otherwise, that doesn't link those two concepts? Even the 19th century SCOTUS cases that used the term were all talking about citizenship at birth. As far as I can tell all sources except Obama birthers link those two concepts. Mystylplx (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I disagree, but having a WP:RS would be better. --Weazie (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While a sizable portion of my brain sympathizes and agrees with Mystylplx on this, I don't believe we can completely dismiss the contrary view as a crackpot idea limited to the anti-Obama birther fringe. Even before 2008, people were debating the exact meaning of "natural born citizen" — though, to be sure, most of this earlier debate focussed on whether the phrase encompassed only those people who were born in the US (as opposed to people born abroad to American parents, who acquired citizenship from birth via statute). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to completely dismiss the contrary view to say that Madison's quote merits inclusion. Certainly the view that it means "citizen at birth" is strong enough, even if it's not the exclusive view, for that quote to be noteworthy in this article. It is additionally apropos in that it speaks of how in the United States we determine allegiance. Moreover, interestingly but maybe not pertinent, Ramsay also argued that citizen parents are required to be a (specifically) natural born citizen. I don't know that Madison's quote was addressed specifically to that portion of Ramsays argument though, as that part seemed to be an aside that was not directly relevant to his contesting Smith being seated. Mystylplx (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some googling turned up United States. Congress. House. Committee on Elections (1834). "David Ramsay vs. William Smith of South Carolina". Cases of contested elections in Congress: from the year 1789 to 1834, inclusive. Printed by Gales and Seaton. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Madison's remarks are on pages 32-35. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Rubio a "candidate"?

There are a spate of articles discussing Marco Rubio's eligibility. Rubio has repeatedly denied interest in the presidency or vice-presidency. Should he be added to the candidates list as a "possible candidate"? Or wait until he actually declares his candidacy (or, in the case of the vice presidency, is nominated)? --Weazie (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Mystylplx (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTED: applicability of U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401

In this edit Natty4bumpo claims "however, regardless of disagreements among scholars and politicians, the matter is clearly defined in U.S. law." It is blatant original research for a Wikipedia editor to make assertions that a statute can decide a constitutional question. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing was composed in answer to completely unsubstantiated statements that previously existed in the immediately preceding paragraph. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether the code section is applicable at all is a complex issue that should be treated in the body of the article, not in the lead. The treatment should be based on secondary sources. Placing that statute in the lead gives undo weight to that statute. Who knows, secondary sources might universally agree it is irrelevant, or perhaps no reliable secondary source mentions, it, in which case Wikipedia shouldn't mention it either. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In essence, you are questioning whether U.S. law is relevant to U.S. law. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The constitution trumps statutes. Thus careful examination is needed to see whether Congress had or has the authority to define the meaning of a phrase that appears in the constitution by merely passing a statute. Looking at a few of the sources cited in the article, there are reliable sources stating that Congress gets to define who, in addition to those guaranteed citizenship by the 14th amendment, are citizens, and when that citizenship goes into effect. So certainly there will be enough good sources to mention the statute. I have not looked for sources claiming the converse. But the multi-step analysis of whether the code applies is too lengthy for the lead. In order to put a short summary stating the code applies (and when the code became effective) there should be a virtually indisputable source supporting the summary. Otherwise it should be treated in the body of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether the code section is applicable at all is a complex issue that should be treated in the body of the article, not in the lead. The treatment should be based on secondary sources. Placing that statute in the lead gives undo weight to that statute. Who knows, secondary sources might universally agree it is irrelevant, or perhaps no reliable secondary source mentions, it, in which case Wikipedia shouldn't mention it either. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The more important thing there is the statute doesn't define Natural Born Citizen. It defines citizen at birth. Now, do those two phrases mean the same thing? Yes they do. But is that fact universally agreed upon by reliable sources? No it isn't. I do think though, that there should be at least some mention in the lead of the idea that this is what it means. Plenty of reliable sources to back it up and very very few that contradict it. Much (but not all) of the confusion on this, IMO, comes from confusing discussions of what the requirements are to be a natural born citizen, with definitions. In the 19th century there was a great deal of argument about what the requirements were to be a natural born citizen-- were citizen parents required? -- Or not? But they weren't arguing about the meaning of the phrase--in each case they were talking about what the rules were re. being entitled to citizenship from birth. The mistake being made here is on a level with hearing the phrase "Boy scouts are honest, loyal, and trustworthy." and thinking that means that Boy Scouts are defined as honest, loyal and trustworthy. Even John Bingham, who the birthers hold up as their standard bearer, was using the phrase to mean 'citizens at birth' even as he argued about what the requirements were to be one.

Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that viewpoint is heavily under-represented in the article. It didn't used to be, but over the past couple years it's been slowly removed. Maybe it's time to start putting it back. . Mystylplx (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If "natural born citizen" is different from "citizen at birth", those who are born by Caesarean section or are conceived by in vitro fertilization are ineligible for election to the office of President of the United States. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is an at-least-partially-open, not-fully-settled question whether "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" do or do not mean exactly the same thing. 8 USC 1401 unquestionably calls out a list of categories of persons who, under current US law, are "citizens at birth". However, as has been mentioned by others already, not everyone has agreed that every "citizen at birth" is also, by definition, a "natural born citizen". The mainstream view, to be sure, appears to be that these two concepts are the same — and, for what little it's worth here, my own personal opinion is that "natural born citizen" literally means "citizen at birth" — but we need to be careful in this article to keep these terms separate, recognize that there is (and has historically been) a spectrum of views on the subject, and not simply conclude that the matter is conclusively settled and that only one view merits attention.

A big part of the problem is that the term "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere in the text of the Constitution. Thus, an argument could validly be made that the phrase must be understood only by determining the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and without reference to any subsequent statutes (which cannot define the Constitution's meaning). Many (possibly most) experts would point out that "natural born" was a widely understood term of the legal art in the 18th century, and that everyone at the time understood it to mean "citizen at birth" (i.e., someone who didn't need to be naturalized because he or she was natural born). But a few people point to Vattel's The Law of Nations, which (albeit in an English translation postdating the writing of the Constitution) appears to put forth a narrower definition of the term. Again, we can't take sides here; per NPOV, the most we can do is to note the various views as attested by reliable sources.

As for the "at a minimum" disputed sentence in the lead section, I'm not really that comfortable with any version of this sentence I've seen so far (including the one I proposed last night). I could possibly be comfortable with something saying that most experts believe "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen at birth", but even that might need to be nuanced further, and as a probably contentious statement, it would likely need to be supported by one or more sources, even in the lead.

I should also mention here that, although I am a Wikipedia administrator, I consider myself to be heavily involved in this subject, and I would therefore not consider it appropriate for me to exercise any "admin" functions on this article or the editors working on it (with the possible exception of acting to stop indisputably obvious vandalism — but the recent activity strikes me not as vandalism, but as an edit war prompted by arguably good-faith disputation over content).

Regarding the statute in question here, BTW, if there is in fact an appropriate place and manner to mention it here, we should call it "Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952". The Immigration and Nationality Act has not been "enacted as positive law", so its restatement in Title 8 of the United States Code is not the primary, official citation. Also, the list of categories comprising citizens at birth extends beyond section 301 into several following sections. — Richwales (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is very specifically about the natural-born citizen clause. As the U.S. Constitution cannot be defined or trumped by statutes, their inclusion is irrelevant to this article. This issue has been discussed in the talk pages (and archives). (It also violates WP:SYNTH to infer a relationship.) --Weazie (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and part of the discussion in that article is about the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen". If the U.S Code is irrelevant to the interpretation of the Constitution, then the musings of philosophers and politicians about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is even more so. In fact, the very purpose of the U.S. Code is to clarify the Constitution. Your assertion that the U.S. Code is not relevant is strictly POV, and not very accurate, especially since "natural born citizen" MEANS "citizen at birth". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll remind everyone (without naming names, lest I be accused of bias) that Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring in general, and the "three-revert rule" in particular, apply to this article. Read WP:EW. Although reverting obvious vandalism is not considered a violation of EW/3RR, what is going on here would most likely be seen as a content dispute and not fighting vandalism. There are accepted procedures for dispute resolution (read WP:DR), and we should attempt to use these. — Richwales (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reported the edit warring [3] of User:Natty4bumpo. --Weazie (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this article is specifically about the natural-born citizen clause. The "musings of philosophers and politicians" is classic secondary-source material that wikipedia relies upon. Your beliefs on the role U.S. Code, and the interrelationship between "natural-born citizen" and "citizen at birth," are ultimately not relevant to the article, as they violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you have a WP:RS that backs up what you assert, please cite it. --Weazie (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Natty4bumpo has been blocked for 48 hours, so he is presently unable to participate in this discussion. However, thus far he has appeared to be engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU against the consensus that there is no WP:RS to justify inclusion of the U.S. Code in this article -- material that was previously deleted by consensus.

Relatedly, I think the lede should be restored to include the current view on the definition of the clause, as the previously lede was an accurate summary of the article. (I do not have a strong opinion about the changes to the subheaders.) --Weazie (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually what the lead said was not the current view. The current view is pretty much the same as it always was--that it means citizen at birth--with only a relative few suggesting otherwise. See the report by the Congressional Research service, as an example. And I think we need to stop over interpreting a lot out of context quotes from a debate over what the requirements should be to be a citizen at birth and presenting them as if they were defining the term. Part of the problem, I think, with where this article has gone is there's no distinction between discussion of the meaning of the term and debates over what the requirements for it should be. All those out of context quotes make it appear those people were defining it, but if you look at the context near every one of them was using it to mean citizen at birth. If we are going to put a definition back ion the lead it should be the predominant view both currently and historically, with maybe a mention that there has been debate about what the requirements are to be a natural born citizen. Mystylplx (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, the article must nonetheless be accurate. Professor Chin, for example, goes out of his way to specify "citizen at birth" under the 14th Amendment because he understands that the U.S. Code could recognize citizenship (at birth) for cases where citizenship would not be automatically granted under the 14th Amendment (i.e., the "McCain issue"). Which is why, at the very least, a WP:RS would be required equate the U.S. Code with the clause's requirements. --Weazie (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but equating the U.S code with the clauses requirements is exactly what Chin was doing. It's been awhile since I read that, but if IRC Chins argument was that according to the law at the time McCain was born he was not a citizen (at birth) and that later Congress passed a law making him a citizen from birth retroactively. Mystylplx (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that Chin follows "the citizens at birth by statute are natural born" theory (and that McCain was not a citizen at birth and therefore ineligible). Chin briefly mentions that citizen-at-birth-by-statute theory has its distractors. --Weazie (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Theres no one true answer. We can only state all of the POV that have been offered up, giving them all equal weight and representation. This is the most NPOV thing to do. I agree, there is no consensus to use this source at this time. I further agree with Jc3s5h that how it was being used was blatant original research. Outback the koala (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Giving equal weight is not necessarily NPOV if it gives undue weight to a clearly minority or fringe view. --Weazie (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the view must be included nonetheless. Outback the koala (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the U.S. code on citizenship by birth I agree it was being used inappropriately. That's why I took it out. Twice. But I do think that, presented appropriately, it ought to go somewhere in the article. I also don't think the idea is to give everyone "equal weight" but rather is to present it according to how it's weighted among reliable sources. I agree with Richwales that there's some doubt about what the phrase means, but right now the article creates an impression that there's way more doubt than there actually is. (Though to be honest, it's been worse in the past.) I do think, though, that we need to make a clearer distinction between reliable sources talking about what the term means and reliable sources arguing about what the requirements should be. Plus maybe a couple three sentences filling in the history of what they were really debating about in the 19th century when this phrase came up. And what happened to the Court Cases section? I'd suggest bringing that back, but just make sure we don't quote the rulings out of context but include a brief description of what each of those cases was about. And speaking of context, there used to be a dictionary definition of the archaic (contemporary to the framers) meaning of the compound adjective "natural born." Why did that get taken out? Everyone knows what the word "citizen" means; it's the archaic compound-adjective that confuses people. I can't see how explaining what the adjective meant at the time the Constitution was written could be anything less than pertinent to this article. Mystylplx (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Provided, of course, the focus remains on the natural-born citizen clause. (A discussion on the definition of the phrase "natural-born citizen" of course could be helpful, and place things in context.) --Weazie (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(Since Natty4bumpo has indicated that he doesn't intend to work on this article any more after his block expires, I'm taking the liberty of copying/moving a comment here from his talk page. — Richwales (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

I'd have to say that citing the US Code as an authority for the meaning of "natural born citizen" when legal experts have differing interpretations is indeed original research, since the US Code would be a primary source in such a context. See the WP:PRIMARY section of WP:NOR for some discussion. Even caselaw (judicial decisions) could be primary: best sources would be (e.g.) law review articles. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And since (as far as I'm aware) all the US Code references use the phrase "citizen at birth", using such material to interpret the "natural born citizen" clause depends on an assumption that "natural born citizen" means "citizen at birth". While this may in fact be true, there has historically been enough debate on the subject (long predating the current anti-Obama "birther" controversy, as has already been mentioned) that any attempt to assert this equivalency either implicitly, or by claiming it's obvious common sense, would run afoul of WP:SYNTH, and possibly also WP:FRANKIE. Discussing comments by scholars who have argued that "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen at birth" — as well as comments by scholars arguing the opposite — would, on the other hand, be quite appropriate here. — Richwales (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur, well reasoned comment. Outback the koala (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's been very little historical debate on the meaning of the term. There was debate on what the requirements were to be a citizen at birth, but when you say there has been significant debate on the meaning of the term you are overstating the case. Indeed, only one scholar who has been cited in this article takes the position that natural born citizen means something other than citizen at birth, that person being Alexander Porter Morse. I'm not really sure why his opinion is included as he's not a particularly noteworthy figure from history. All the other quotes and citations in this article are arguments about what the requirements should be to be a citizen at birth. Mystylplx (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if "natural-born citizen" means the same as "citizen at birth", is there universal agreement that Congress can change the meaning of this concept by passing a law, or might it be frozen in time as it existed at the ratification of the Constitution and/or the 14th Amendment? And then there is the question of a person who was not a citizen at birth under the law in effect at the time of her birth, but was retroactively made a citizen by passage of a law. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There's universal agreement that a Constitutional amendment can amend the Constitution. Congress can't change it by simply passing a bill, which is why the attempts to change it have been proposed Constitutional amendments. Mystylplx (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the case with McCain being retroactively made a citizen at birth, I guess that's still an open question. Interesting bit of history on this--the British usage of natural born subject came about from a peculiarity of British naturalization law. Naturalized British subjects were, through a legal fiction, naturalized from birth. IOW they were made subjects from birth. But then the Brits discovered they still had need to distinguish between those who were really subjects from birth and those who were merely made subjects from birth. Thus the phrase natural born subject referred to the former, the word "natural" in it's meaning of "not made." Mystylplx (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the requirements were to be considered a citizen at birth when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, but I'm quite sure they have been changed in laws since then. If the laws had the power to define who was a citizen at birth, then each change in the law changed who was eligible to be president. So such changes have the effect of changing the constitution. In many cases, the constitution does delegate to the Congress the authority to set certain details. A good case could easily be made that Congress does have the authority to determine this detail through laws. But I don't know if virtually everyone agrees Congress can change presidential eligibility through laws, or if there is some controversy on this point. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The framers merely required the President to have been a citizen from birth. They didn't specify the requirements to be a citizen from birth--they left that up to Congress. An argument could be made that Congress can't specify that either since the Constitution merely gives them the right to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" but it should be noted that the first congress passed an act which made those "born beyond the sea," of citizen parents, natural born citizens. Since the first congress was made up of many of those who actually wrote the Constitution it's hard to argue that they had intended for congress to not have that power. Mystylplx (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Time is important

The laws concerning citizenship are constantly changing, and the article discusses cases over a wide time range. All statement in the article should be clear about what time period they apply to. [of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established This edit] by Wtmitchell is not clear about what time period it applies to. The fact that it appears in the lead implies it has always applied from the moment the constitution was ratified until the present day; I strongly suspect that is not the case. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember we are talking about two separate questions. One is the question of what natural born citizen means. The other is the question of what the requirements are to be a citizen at birth. Natural born citizen has always meant citizen at birth in the English language. The history of this goes back to before there was an America and the meaning of term natural born subject. This is the problem the article is having--conflating the meaning of the phrase with arguments over what the requirements should be. Mystylplx (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Case law" section — delete?

Similarly to the recently deleted "Legislation and executive branch policy" section, it seems to me that an argument can be made for removing the "Case law" section. These court cases deal primarily with questions of citizenship acquired at birth — something which (as the rest of the article makes plain) is not universally accepted as being 100% equivalent to being a "natural born citizen". Although some of the cases do mention the term "natural born citizen", they do so in passing; none of these cases (except apparently for Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana) dealt directly with the eligibility for the Presidency of a specific individual, so their comments about the natural born citizen clause are at most obiter dicta, not holdings or binding precedents. What do others think? Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of your analysis, but I do agree with your ultimate conclusion. (1) The "Case law" section, as is, is WP:OR cherrypicking. (It could be improved by extensively referencing proper sources that discuss those cases, but I don't see the point in that.) (2) These cases descriptions are lifted from the birthright citizenship articles, which this article links to in the "see also" section -- is easy enough for interested readers to find them. --Weazie (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor vs. Happersat specifically stated "Let there be no doubt that framers of the Constitution defined natural born citizen to mean born in the nation AND to parents (plural) who are citizens (plural) of the nation". It couldn't be any plainer than that. And it's in a Supreme Court decision , whether it's main gest of the case or not, it doesn't matter. It's stated. Seems like a cut and dry , black and white, statement to most people. Futhermore it disputes the sites erroneous, early statement that Supreme Court said nothing about the definition. It certainly did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See the section right above this. Ravensfire (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary interpretations

I've removed the note that:

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

- I don't have access to a copy, but it seems fairly probable from "a national government" that Black's is speaking about a general meaning of the term rather than discussing the meaning in the context of American law per se. As such, I'm not sure it's relevant in this specific context. Shimgray | talk | 13:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. Black's Law Dictionary focuses on American law. --Weazie (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I should probably have said "constitutional" there, to be precise. My concern is that this feels cherry-picked - the definition of the phrase may say this, but the use of "a national government" rather than a specific reference to the US strongly implies it's treating the general case, and not specifically discussing the constitutional use. As you noted a couple of months back, we should probably focus on sources discussing the meaning of the clause itself, rather than ones discussing the meaning of the phrase in isolation!

I'm open to correction if Black's turns out to have wording suggesting it's discussing the constitutional context, but if so we should probably make this clear in the article - at the moment, it certainly looks general. Shimgray | talk | 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "natural-born citizen" appears in the U.S. Constitution, and is relevant only to the citizenship status of the president and vice-president. It appears in no other context. --Weazie (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I modified to reference Black's definition of the natural-born citizen clause. --Weazie (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - this works better, I think. Shimgray | talk | 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It refers to the legal definition. The Constitution is a legal document. Plus, as far as anyone can tell, it's the only place in U.S. law that uses the phrase. I don't think it needs to specifically say, for every definition in the dictionary, whether it refers to the Constitution or not. Mystylplx (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Black's Law Dictionary is hardly contempory having been around in the 1700s. Sort of disputes the whole premise of this post and author's intent. There is plenty of evidence elsewhere that the framer's of Constitution did not use BLACK for their definition of natural born citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The "contempory" section refers to the 9th edition of Black's, which was published in 2009. --Weazie (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Election season has started.

The 2012 election cycle has started. For those unaware, last week Orly Taitz unsuccessfully attempted to have Obama's name removed from the New Hampshire ballot. There also seems to be an uptick in the attempts to edit the articles touching upon Obama's eligibility. I suspect the two are related. --Weazie (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

She's a persistent one - makes Don Quixote look like a dabbler. Time to keep a closer eye here and on the other related articles. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

The election board of New Hampshire in 2011 consisted of all Democrats whose reasoning during cross examination "Did he fill out the paperwork and provide a check"? Response "Yes , Joe Biden VP dropped it off last week". Question " Did the check clear?" Response "YES" Reply " Then Obama is qualified". There was no discussion of the merits of the case, yet in 2008 the NH Board Election Board declared a candidate ineligible who was not a natural born citizen but whose paperwork was all filled out and check cleared. So the original poster of the first paragraph above leaves out most of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2011‎ (UTC)

WP:RS, please. And also not accurate, but as the talk page is not a forum, there's no need to go into that here. No action by the commission, however, is relevant to this article. --Weazie (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizen at birth

Part of the difficulty here is some have been confusing arguments about the requirements to be a citizen at birth with arguments about the meaning of the phrase. In the article there is only one cited source saying the phrase means something other than citizen at birth. There are other sources using the phrase in context with arguments over what the requirements are to be a citizen at birth, thus they are explicitly using it to mean citizen at birth. Literally every quote in the article from the 19th century (but one) is from someone who was using it in the context of the debate over what the requirements were to be a citizen at birth. They were all using it synonymously with citizen at birth. All the court cases that have been removed, where the phrase was used, were specifically about whether someone was or was not a citizen by birth--none of them were about Presidential eligibility, and if natural born citizen was a term for a special kind of citizenship test that only applied to Presidential eligibility then why did all those politicians and judges keep using it in the debate over what the requirements were to be a normal everyday citizen at birth?

On the other hand we've got the Congressional Research Service explicitly stating it means citizen at birth and no one other than Alexander Porter Morse explicitly stating otherwise. I'd say the CRS trumps a not particularly notable 19th century attorney by quite some ways... Then, strangely, you have those who list the basic requirements for who is eligible for citizenship by birth, and saying anyone who meets those requirements is a natural born citizen, but without just coming right out and saying what they are really saying--natural born citizen = citizen at birth. There is no significant disagreement with this among reliable sources--this is far and away the consensus opinion among scholars. The fact that the Senate declared McCain to be a natural born citizen is another strong indication of that fact. The fact that it was not significantly controversial is another indication of that fact. The idea that there is any confusion or ambiguity about it is an idea that is expressed by a small but significant minority. Such a minority view should be mentioned but not given undue weight.

The ironic thing in this article is that, to the extent any confusion exists, the doubt is whether a person born on foreign soil and entitled to citizenship through his parents is a natural born citizen, or whether birth on the soil (ALA 14th amendment) is required. I'll say again--the degree to which even this much confusion exists is overstated. (see the McCain Presidential run) But I'll also point out that this article doesn't even touch on that debate. Instead it circles round and round the Obama birthers claim that citizen parents are necessary to qualify. This article still suffers from post-birther-distress-disorder or PBDD.

The clear and overwhelming opinion is that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. A minority take the position that it is unclear, but usually don't argue against the majority position. And then there are the birthers... nuff said. Mystylplx (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor vs Happersat said "Let there be no doubt that framers meant natural born citizen to mean born in the nation AND to parents (plural ) who are citizens (plural) of the nation." Leahy and CHertoff said in the McCain 2008 resolution "...natural born citizen means born to parents of citizens of the nation. Vattel said, in translated version the same thing. Bingham said the same thing. Pretty much decimates the rest of this post conclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Let there be no doubt that framers meant natural born citizen to mean born in the nation AND to parents (plural) who are citizens (plural) of the nation." As best I can tell, there is no such exact (or even close-to-exact) quote in the text of Minor v. Happersett. There is something vaguely similar to this in the opinion (88 U.S. at 167), but the fact that your source put forth this supposed (and incorrect) quote should really lead you to wonder about the reliability of said source. And, in any case, Minor v. Happersett explicitly sidesteps this question ("For the purposes of this case ... [i]t is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.") — and Minor wasn't dealing with eligibility for the Presidency, so anything the Court said regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" was obiter dicta, not a holding, which is why few people here are willing to take stock in Minor v. Happersett as a definitive pronouncement regarding Presidential eligibility.

"...natural born citizen means born to parents of citizens of the nation." I'm guessing you are referring here to S.Res.511 (110th Congress), "Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen" — but I'm afraid I can't find this bit of verbiage anywhere in the text of said resolution. The resolution does say that John McCain is natural-born because he "was born to American citizens on an American military base", but that is not the same as saying that only people born to two American parents can possibly be natural-born citizens. — Richwales (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Even more damning from the same case is this - "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." The court explicitly sidestepped the issue. Ravensfire (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In Minor v. Happersett the Court also said:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

So they recognized only two types of citizenship, "by birth" – for which they cite the natural born citizen clause – and "by naturalization" – for which they cite the uniform rule of naturalization clause. Since they do not recognize a third type of "by birth but not natural born", they are obviously treating the two categories as being the same – a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what has already been pointed out I'll add that John Bingham also used to term synonymously with citizen at birth

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.

Mystylplx (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Natural born citizen, contemporary meaning

There has been a lot of discussion on this page about whether there is conclusive proof that Vattel's definition was the source of the clause. A lot of reliable sources have been referenced, but none of them have been conclusive. Ultimately we can't know if Vattel was the source. But we can know what the founders understood the term natural born citizen to mean. Clearly it refers to someone who is a citizen at birth. So to understand what the term meant you must understand the conditions that made someone a citizen at the time the Constitution was written. At that time the citizenship of both parents were tied to the citizenship of the husband. Women who married a citizen would automatically become a citizen. Likewise wives of naturalized men would automatically become a citizen. Conversely, if an American woman who married an alien would lose her citizenship. Here is the relevant website. This would seem to confirm that regardless of the source the founders definition of natural born citizen matched that of Vattel's. At that time there was no half measures no dual citizenship either both parents were citizens or neither were. For a child to be born a citizen both of the child's parents would have had to have been citizens.

This was confirmed in the naturalization act of 1790, which was passed by the first congress containing the framers of the constitution. It was signed by John Adams and George Washington. It stated “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:” Here is the relevant text of the act. This is the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen. And it clearly states that both parents had to be citizens.

The later passage of the civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment did nothing to alter this application of the natural born citizen clause. Because they sought only to define citizenship and protect civil rights. They at no point addressed the status of natural born citizen and proposed no changes to who qualifies as a natural born citizen. In fact John Bingham the principal framer of the 14th amendment said “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.” text. Since no amendment to the Constitution has ever offered any changes to the natural born citizen clause, it still stands to this day as the law of the land as originally intended.

--BoB B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.45.220 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the citizenship laws of the states prior to ratification as well as the citizenship laws of Britian only required a person to be born on the soil to be 'natural born.' You are right that citizenship of the wife was matched to that of the husband, but that has nothing to do with citizenship of the child. There's no evidence that the framers definition in any way matched Vattels. 74.93.21.110 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR; WP:SYNTH. Cheers. --Weazie (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless the Founding Fathers were prophets of "Nature's God" handing down words received directly from the same divine source, "original intent" is meaningless, else only free, white, men 21 years of age who hold landed property would be the only ones eligible to vote, slavery would still be legal, and Native Americans would still not be citizens. In fact, any person born to a single U.S. citizen is considered a natural born citizen, provided that the father has been resident in the U.S. for at least a short period of time, and this had been the case since 1790 according the very act of Congress to which you refer. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Chuck your sarcasm is inappropriate, this page is a discussion and should be carried on with civility. At no point did Bob call the founders prophets or insist that amendments to the constitution should be overturned to return the text to what the founders wrote. He did make the claim that no law since the 1790 naturalization act has addressed what constitutes a natural born citizen. As far as I have been able to determine he is correct. However, if you have any evidence to the contrary please share. In regards to your assertion that the 1790 naturalization act made anyone born to a single citizen a citizen the text does not bear that out. The act state that the children of such PERSONS so naturalized..... shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. At no point does it even mention parentage in the singular. Which makes sense given the government site referenced by bob in regards to the disposition of womens citizenship in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.44.250 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. It specifically mentions the father. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The most recent reference of the generalized meaning of the term accepted by the U.S. Government is the 110th Senate's Resolution 511 whereby Senator John McCain was found to be a natural born citizen by virtue of being born to two U.S. citizen parents (one of whom met the military/diplomatic exception, thus not eligible for jus soli citizenship at his birthplace, to the child needing to be born in country). Even then Senator Barack Obama, who himself does not meet said resolution's definition due to his father's alien status, cosponsored it. I'd call that conclusive that such "NBC" status is not equivalent to jus soli citizenship.

English Common Law, the law of a monarchy, has no bearing on the law of a republic in the area of citizenship as the fundamental foundational differences between the two systems make any application of the former nonsense in the latter. The origin of a monarchial structure derives from the laws of property ownership: The subjects are the property of the monarch, and so is everything found or created within the monarch's realm unless explicitly excluded. However, with a republic, all is jointly and collectively owned by the people themselves, and thus to become part of the collective, one must either be born into membership or be invited to join. The "NBC" restriction means that only those born into the exclusive* membership of the republic qualify.

• - Exclusive to the absence of any foreign citizenship, rights, or allegiance. The question is: Can someone with non-exclusive membership in a republic (i.e. a polycitizen) qualify? I say that that the collective reasoning of all the cited references indicate not. "The Law of Nations," John Jay's letter to George Washington, Minor v. Happersett, etc...., through to 110SR511 all make this clear: Any person who is, was eligible, or has ever held citizenship or allegiance to other than the United States is excluded.

-- 71.106.211.51 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTAFORUM. 2. Find a WP:RS that supports this position. 3. SR 511's text:

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936

SR 511 is plainly referring to citizens born outside of the United States (unless you arguing that only those born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are natural-born citizens). --Weazie (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Grandfather Provision

The claim is made there is a "grandfather provision" for the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the article that would exempt early presidents born in England. However, it appears the cited source does not actually indicate there was a true grandfather provision. In fact, the cited source merely states:

The term "natural born citizen" was clearly a little elastic in the early days. All of the first seven American presidents were born British. The first true natural-born American president (despite his Dutch name) was Martin Van Buren in 1837. He was born in 1782, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776.

Since this source does not actually substantiate the idea of any "official" "grandfather provision", the language currently used in the article is misleading at best and false at worse. It should be changed. I am loathe to change such a controversial article myself, at such a late hour. Original cited source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-trivia-would-ya-believe-it-989524.html --96.231.214.169 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that reliable sources can be found to substantiate the existence and meaning of the phrase in question ("or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"). I'm hesitant to literally call it a "grandfather clause", since this term originated after the Civil War and is anachronistic w/r/t the writing of the Constitution. However, I would favour keeping the material in question pending additional sources. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be sufficient for WP:RS. --Weazie (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not. To include information in a wiki article the source material must plainly say what is being written. If you wish to include the source as a reference it must pertain to what is being said in the actual reference.It must also be added as an inline citation. While the source appears to be valid and authentic it has no further information to use as a reference and frankly the thought of being told what to add to an article on the basis of what's simply dropped into a discussion page with no further information is not something I myself would trust. As a PDF it could well have been manipulated. Further research into the source would be required to include it by this editor. If you feel strongly , however and can provide the inline information needed to use the source...go for it. But as the article stands the use of the term is unsubstantiated by the reference and was removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is Justice Curtis's opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, "Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation. By the Articles of Confederation, a Government was organized, the style whereof was, 'The United States of America.' This Government was in existence when the Constitution was framed and proposed for adoption, and was to be superseded by the new Government of the United States of America, organized under the Constitution. When, therefore, the Constitution speaks of citizenship of the United States, existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it must necessarily refer to citizenship under the Government which existed prior to and at the time of such adoption." See Wikisource:Dred Scott v. Sandford/DissentCurtis and Michael W. Cluskey (1857). The political text-book, or encyclopedia: Containing everything necessary for the reference of the politicians and statesmen of the United States. C. Wendell. p. 112. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably better to simply not refer to it as a "grandfather clause." It is a convenient and accurate shorthand, but it's an unofficial shorthand and not a necessary one. Mystylplx (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Huffpost quote from CRS report

This edit removed a cite-supported assertion, saying, "may be a CRS report, but it's not in the citation given". The removed assertion was:

... "including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."

One of the removed links to supporting sources was this link to a huffpost article.

That article said, in part, "Also of interest is a 2009 Congressional Research Service report that summed up the prevailing legal view on natural-born citizens:"

... The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that "natural born Citizen" means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

It appears to me that the removed assertion was supported by the removed cite of the huffpost article, so I've restored both the assertion and that cite. I've also removed a {{when}} tag, added dates to the cite, and corrected an unrelated typo in the same paragraph If I've got this wrong, please comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I would hope that Arthur Rubin would discuss if he disagrees instead of just continuing to revert without discussion. Mystylplx (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The CRS report quoted in the huffpost article is also quoted by numerous other sources, and can be seen on Scribd here. The quoted snippet can be seen on page 4 of the report in the second paragraph of the Background/Summary section under Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizen Requirement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Scrib refuses to let me download without paying; if you had referred to page 4, I might have found it. I still don't think it's an accurate statement of law, but it should be in the artcle. Please change the raw URLs to proper citations, including page numbers, and it's a go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a new CRS report. --Weazie (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The new one is also hosted at LegiStorm. Mystylplx (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Numerous articles on wikipedia link to Legistorm. So it shouldn't be a problem if this article does the same. --Weazie (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Unlike Scribd, Legistorm is in and of itself a publisher with a reputation for independent fact checking. The new report is the preferable one to use, I'd say, as the older one was a memo and this is an actual report. Legistorm requires a paid subscription to read the report in its entirety (though it can still be read in its entirety on Scribd) but the last two sentences of the summary published for free on Legistorm should be sufficient for the current context

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.

Mystylplx (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This post fails to mention that these revisions were made under the direction of Obama, by Obots, knowing fully well that OBama did not meet Supreme Court case decisions (Minor vs. Happersat) and other definitions that say otherwise in an attempt to marginalize and sanitize the discussion in event that forthcoming challenges are being made (which they are in all 50 states) to the question of Obama's eligibility / qualifications to be on the ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Page 88 U. S. 167

...snip...

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must
be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the
framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the
jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the
purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for
everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

...snip...

— Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

Minor v. Happersett does not say what you think is says. The status of the parents is not considered under jus soli and that is how we run. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From the following quote, we can safely assume that only children born in "America" to TWO (2) citizen parents are natural born. It is rather humorous to see people arguing over this issue, when it is so plainly stated. Both parents MUST be AMERICAN citizens to establish Citizenship by birth. "it was never doubted that all children born in a
country of "parents" who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens". On the same note I am sure we all know that the 14th amendment is merely an act of Congress and that is does NOT make citizens of illegals children. Congress is quite clear they know and do nothing about it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg23690/pdf/CHRG-109hhrg23690.pdf Secondly for those debating the "lawyers" in here, you are wasting your time. Lawyers in general are poorly educated in law and are merely taught "legal procedure". They will tell you there is only one class of citizen in "United States". Why then can the federal citizens of Guam,puerto rico,D.C., not vote in general elections when the Constitution clearly says ALL "citizens of the United States" can vote? Why did Obama claim to have campaigned in 57 "states"? Because he knows as do I, that there is 50 "states" in the union, and 14 FEDERAL STATES known as the "United States" What they fail to learn or tell you is that "America" and the "United States" are distinctly different geographical locations. The Constitution states it clearly in many places. "Neither the UNITED STATES NOR any STATE (14th amendment, 26th amendment. Hooven,Alllison v. Evatt). Additionally the qualification clauses, (art. 1:2:2, 1:3:3) absolutely do "Define" "natural born by their use of "inhabitant" as opposed to "resident". Problem is no one seems to know the difference between "American Citizen" and "US citizen". One is a freeman, the other is a subject. Notice Happersett above supports this statement as does Congress in 22 U.S.C. 23 (1731). Naturalized( US citizen), Native born (American Citizen). The absurdity of the post above is self evident. It CLEARLY states only children born WITH IN the "United States" to CITIZEN PARENTS (notice the plural) are themselves Citizens. No Citizen ParentS, no citizenship.. No anchor baby's, no birth tourism. Anyone who hires a lawyer deserves what they get in court. Some people might read the house journal of June 14, 1967 House Congressional Record Page 15875. They had an in depth discussion of "natural born" as it applied to George Romney and found he was NOT eligible for the office of President in 1968, because he was born in mexico and thus was a NATURALIZED citizen, even though born to American parents. Peace Wildbill 98.206.222.240 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment is a wee bit more than "merely and act of Congress". The rest is just WP:OR obscuring the fact that children born in the US are, by Right, U.S. citizens (children of ambassadors, etc. excluded) regardless of the status of the parents. That is the Law. Now, did you have a suggestion for improving the article ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited documents (the 2005 House subcommittee hearing, and the 1967 Congressional Record material) report the opinions of individuals — not any sort of "in-depth discussion" or definitive judgment. The comments about lawyers knowing only "legal procedure", "freeman" vs. "subject", definition of "state", (mis)interpretation of Minor v. Happersett, etc., etc. would be suitable for inclusion here only if it were discussed in reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). — Richwales (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And the claim that the 14th Amendment is nothing more than an act of Congress — because (as I understand the argument) the amendment was supposedly illegally "ratified" in defiance of the "equal suffrage in the Senate" clause of Article V — is, again, the opinion of certain individuals, and not any sort of authoritative ruling by anyone whose judgments carry legal weight. An independent, balanced discussion of this claim might be appropriate somewhere else, but not here — and it won't be appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia unless the claim and its implications are discussed and placed in context and perspective in reliable secondary sources (such as, perhaps, newspaper reports or law reviews). And before anyone says I'm challenging the reliability of the Congressional Record by questioning whether or not a denunciation of the 14th Amendment was in fact made on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 13, 1967, please note that all the Congressional Record proves is that the Louisiana state legislature and at least one Congressman believed and promoted this argument — it doesn't prove the argument is valid, and it doesn't even establish that it's anything more than a fringe theory. — Richwales (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this while looking at something else. It doesn't seem to be central to the point being made, but my eye picked it up. Since it's relatively recent, I'll comment. 8.206.222.240 asserted above that the constitution clearly says ALL "citizens of the United States" can vote. I don't see that in the constitution. It says (has been amended to say) that the right of "citizens of the United States" shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment), on account of sex (19th amendment), by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax (24th amendment), or on account of age (for those citizens who are eighteen years of age or older -- 26th amendment). That's not the same thing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

E.g., convicted felons. Fat&Happy (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett revisited

It is time to stop the guess-work. Here is the relevant text (page 88), emphasis added:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.” Minor v. Happersett, page 88 U.S. 162, 168.

Isn't this clear enough for you folks? Why don't you include this quote in the article and let the public decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.26.62 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple reasons.

1. Because you truncated the quote and took it out of context. The preceding sentence is "Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." See how they are saying there are only two kinds of citizens? Then the following 3 sentences which you also left out, "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." See how they are explicitly saying they aren't ruling on whether citizen parents are required because in that case they didn't have to?

2. It's dicta. Mystylplx (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why did you exclude the next three short sentences:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

This part makes it clear that the Court was merely restating the obvious, that there was no doubt about the status of people in the first category, and that since Minor met those conditions, there was no need for them to rule either way on the less stringent definition. Since the Court did not address the question, the case is irrelevant to discussions of a broader definition of "natural-born citizen". If commentary in some court opinion stated "there is no doubt that Blacks have the right to vote", it does not mean that Asians do not have that right. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be instructive for the IP user to read the relevant parts in their entirety--

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways:first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizenschildren born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Mystylplx (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the editorial bugs (I did not realize that the subsection was moved).

To the point. Many thanks for the constructive and informative comments. Since the article is about the term "natural born citizen", the main message from the Minor v. Happersett case is that there are differences (and similarities) between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", and that this case sheds light on this issue.

The way things are, it is extremely odd that the article does not say anything concrete about the US Supreme Court's perspective on this issue. So I think that we shall all agree that it would be useful to add a subsection entitled "US Supreme Court" where a number of cases that shed light on this term will be briefly discussed. I'll be happy to do it, but I'll need help from an experienced Wikipedia editor. Any suggestions? Buenavista2008 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the main message is there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. The word "citizen" is generic for any citizen, i.e. a natural born citizen is a citizen and a naturalized citizen is a citizen. Notice the sentence " ... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,citizens also. By your logic are you saying they meant that children born in the country of citizen parents were merely citizens and not natural born citizens? Of course that makes no sense. Thinking the word "citizen" denotes some special kind of citizen is like thinking 'ice cream' is a special flavor of ice cream. It's also important to note that they explicitly say they are not deciding the issue of whether citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen AKA a citizen at birth (the debate at the time was over whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen at birth, AKA natural born citizen.) The last sentence I quoted makes it very clear they are not deciding that in this case. Wong Kim Ark goes into more detail about the meaning.

I'm not opposed to a Supreme Court section but we would have to use reliable secondary sources to do the interpreting. The CRS report does a good job of spelling it out though, so there's at least one good secondary source that could be used for such a section. Mystylplx (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Mystylplx.

I am a retired academic (applied mathematician) so I take the liberty of suggesting that it will be unwise to put words in the US Supreme court's mouth. The Minor v. Happersett case draws a clear distinction between "citizens" and "natural born citizens", where the former is a special case of the latter. Hence, according to Minor v. Happersett, a "natural born citizen" is a "citizen", but not vice versa, namely a "citizen" is not necessarily a "natural born citizen". This is a non-problematic issue, so I hope that we all accept it as a starting point.

Furthermore, one can argue very convincingly that Minor v. Happersett implies that the parents citizenship rather than a parent citizenship is a requirement for the "natural born citizen", for otherwise it is not clear why the text mentions parents. It will be interesting to find out if there are US Supreme Court cases where a parent rather than parents is mentioned as a requirement.

This does not mean to say that there could not be other possible qualifications that are sufficient for a "citizen" to be a "natural born citizen". But no one seems to be aware of the existence of such qualifications in US Supreme Court cases.

In short, mathematically speaking, Minor v. Happersett provides "sufficient conditions" for a "natural born citizen", hence "citizen". To the best of my knowledge there are no US Supreme Court cases that provide "necessary conditions". This, hopefully, will be eventually determined by the US Supreme Court itself.

I suggest that we start with a "US Supreme Court" subsection in the article, consisting of a brief discussion of Minor v. Happersett. Hopefully, the subsection will be expanded in due course.

It will be great if you could let me know if you know of any other US Supreme Court cases where the "citizen" vs "natural born citizen" issue is mentioned/discussed/explained. If so, we can include such cases in the proposed new subsection. Buenavista2008 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sufficient conditions" is a good way of describing it. The Supreme Court was saying that Mrs. Minor was unquestionably a citizen, because "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168.) They didn't need to delve further into citizenship issues because they didn't need to in order to deal with the case before them. I disagree that this case "draws a clear distinction between 'citizens' and 'natural-born citizens'", because that wasn't even remotely what this case was about. It didn't matter if Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen, because she was not trying to run for President or Vice-President. She claimed to be a citizen — and the Court pointed out that even under the "lowest common denominator" definition of citizenship which everyone would surely agree upon, she unquestionably qualified. The point at issue here was whether or not being a citizen automatically gave Mrs. Minor the right to vote — and the Court said it did not. Anything the Court said that wasn't germane to the question of whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote was not part of the "holdings" of the case, but was instead a passing remark (obiter dictum). Telling the difference between holdings and dicta is not "putting words in the Supreme Court's mouth" — this is something lawyers and judges are expected to do. The fact that a Supreme Court opinion included a paraphrase of Vattel's Law of Nations does not automatically turn that passage into holy writ.

I would have no objection at all to a "United States Supreme Court" section in this article, as long as it is reasonably comprehensive, gives a summary description of each case and the context in which the majority opinion mentions the phrase "natural-born citizen", makes liberal use of high-quality secondary sources such as law review articles (and specifically articles written by professors, not second-year law students), and fairly and proportionately represents the various viewpoints in pursuit of NPOV. While we may very probably find more cases which cite either Minor v. Happersett or Vattel's "natives or natural-born citizens" verbiage, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any Supreme Court cases directly interpreting the phrase "natural-born citizen", for the simple reason that (as far as I know) no case specifically dealing with presidential eligibility has ever been reviewed or decided by the Supreme Court (meaning that any comment interpreting this phrase in any case is really going to be dicta by definition). But as long as the material is properly handled in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles, by all means include it. — Richwales 07:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out what they said and what it means in English, not putting words in their mouth. You are right that "citizen" is the general term. It is not a separate kind of citizenship. This should be obvious. They specifically state there are two (and only two) ways to become a citizen, by birth or by naturalization. They then point to the natural born citizen clause (by birth) and the naturalization clause (by naturalization) as evidence of this.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways:first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

To understand why the text mentions parents it's necessary to know the history of the debate that was taking place in this country right then. This was not long after the civil war and there was question of whether freed slaves were to be considered U.S. citizens. The argument became that citizen parents were necessary to be citizens and thus the children of freed slaves were not citizens because their parents were not citizens (because their parents were not citizens, etc.) The 14th amendment was drafted primarily to give citizenship to those children. Neither in Minor nor any of the other cases was it a question of Presidential eligibility--it was always a question of eligibility of citizenship from birth.

As for other cases, the most relevant is U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. They explore the issue in quite some detail. Another good source of information on the topic is the Congressional Research Service report to Congress on this issue. I would suggest reading Wong Kim Ark in its entirety and the CRS report as well to get a good grounding in the issues. The CRS report is a high quality secondary source as well, so could be used in the proposed section Mystylplx (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback, Richwales and Mystylplx. A number of clarifications first:

1. The "don't put words in the US Supreme Court Mouth" comment does not refer to the "prcedent vs "dicta" issue. it refers to many "free" interpretations of the text in Minor v. Happersett.

2. The clear distinction in Minor v. Happersett that I refer to is the ... clear distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Namely Minor v. Happersettmakes it crystal clear that these are two different things. This is important because some claim that these terms are equivalent.

3. Furthermore, Minor v. Happersett makes it crystal clear that "natural born citizen" is a special case of "citizen", hence the former implies the latter, but not vice versa.

4. To the best of my knowledge (I checked it more than once), there is no reference to "natural born citizen" in "Wong Kim Ark".

Please let me know if you know of any other US Supreme Court cases that refer to, mention, or explain the term "natural born citizen".

Given the above and the title of the article, I suggest that the proposed new subsection should focus on "natural born citizen". Buenavista2008 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark cites Minor v. Happersett — in support of the use of English common law when interpreting provisions of the Constitution, and also (at 679-680) quoting Minor's quoting of Vattel to counter the suggestion that the opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases was meant to restrict the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. There are some other interesting dicta in Wong Kim Ark about natural-born citizens:

• at 654 (the Constitution uses the terms "citizen" and "natural-born citizen", but doesn't define them)

• at 667 ("any person who, whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject")

• at 671 (instances where Britain recognized foreign-born children of natural-born British subjects as being themselves natural-born subjects)

• at 672 (the 1790 US law recognizing foreign-born children of US citizen parents as being natural-born citizens)

In any event, anything said in Wong Kim Ark about citizens vs. natural-born citizens is obiter dicta, since the point at issue in the case was not whether Wong was eligible to be President, but whether Wong was eligible to be considered a citizen at all. — Richwales 08:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of discussion in Wong Kim Ark about the history of the meaning of natural born in relation to both citizen and subject. Rich pointed out only a few. I'm surprised you could miss it as the bulk of the decision is a discussion of the meaning of the term. In Wong Kim Ark they also point out that citizen and subject are "convertible terms," that the framers spoke in the language of English common law, and that under English common law anyone born on the soil, even of alien parents, was a natural-born subject. And yes, Minor makes it clear that natural born citizen is a special case of citizen in the same way they make it clear that naturalized citizen is a special case of citizen. They further make it clear that those are the only two. They point to the Constitution itself as only mentioning two paths to citizenship, natural born or naturalized. I.e., you are either entitled to citizenship from birth or you are made a citizen later through a process of naturalization.

“ Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways:first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

”

This is not "putting words in the Supreme Courts mouth," it is directly quoting what they said in context rather than taking a snippet out of context as you did. Mystylplx (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. I shall write a draft of a new subsection "US Supreme Court" and post it here fr your comments. This may take 10-14 days. Buenavista2008 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources are needed, preferably secondary sources like law review articles (or the CRS reports). Because this topic is a birther coatrack, editors are aware of past edits that do not meet wikipedia's standards, especially quotemining. --Weazie (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Weazie.

As discussed above, the main purpose of the proposed new subsection is to advice readers what the US Supreme Court wrote about this issue. This surely is a reliable source! Needless to say, reliable secondary sources are welcome. I'll need some tips, in due course, regarding COATRACK. Buenavista2008 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions are primary source. You absolutely will need to rely on secondary sources for a section such as this. You can quote from the primary source, but any interpretation must come from secondary sources and be careful of quotemining and taking snippets out of context. We've seen far too much of that in this article. Mystylplx (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks. I am confident that by working together cooperatively we shall be able to find a way to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. In fact, it seems that we all agree on the basic implications of Minor v. Happersett . This is an excellent start. Buenavista2008 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the multiple reliable secondary sources in the article that already have stated that two citizen parents are not required for those born within the United States. (And Minor is a voting-rights case.) --Weazie (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me that we all agree on the implications of Minor v. Happersett. From some of your comments it seems like you may still be under the misapprehension that they were somehow saying that citizen parents were necessary to be a natural born citizen and that the term natural born citizen refers to some third kind of citizenship. Yet they were clearly using the term natural born citizen as synonymous with 'citizen at birth' and in fact were discussing whether Virginia Minor was or was not a citizen at birth. The debate at the time was whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen at birth and all they were doing in Minor was acknowledging that debate was not settled (it was settled by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) but that they didn't need to settle that question for the purposes of that particular case. So the question of whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen at birth was explicitly left open and to the extent any implications can be gleaned from dicta it is that there are two kinds of citizenship and that natural born citizen = born a citizen. Mystylplx (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do not agree with any suggestion that Minor v. Happersett confirmed the existence of a separate category of "natural-born" citizenship. Again, the only holding in Minor v. Happersett relating to any sort of citizenship was the court's decision that because Minor was born in the US, and both of her parents were citizens, this set of circumstances was sufficient to make her a citizen. Minor was trying to vote — she wasn't trying to run for President — so nothing said in this case regarding "natural-born" citizenship is usable as a precedent in any other case. In fact, I imagine we're unlikely to find any decent secondary sources discussing the implications of Minor v. Happersett, because the Supreme Court's decision was effectively overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment. — Richwales 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments folks.

Please read carefully what I write, so that we do not go in circles.

1. I explained at the outset that Minor v. Happersett provides sufficient conditions (see above).

2. I am confident that we all agree on this.

3. Thus, according to Minor v. Happersett, the "two parents" requirement is part of a set of sufficient conditions. The point is that persons who rely on Minor v. Happersett are subject to these conditions. They can, of course, rely on other relevant court decisions, if exist, that are not based on the "two parents" requirement.

4. These conditions do not confirm the existence of a separate category of "natural-born" citizenship. They constitute sufficient conditions (I take it that we are all familiar with the difference between "sufficient" and "necessary" conditions).

5. Before we argue on what secondary sources say about this case, and what is the status of the statements on "natural born citizen" (precedent vs dicta) in this case, let us agree on what Minor v. Happersett actually says. Buenavista2008 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for people to agree on what Minor v. Happersett actually says. The only thing suitable on this page is a reliable secondary source and a discussion of what due material would be suitable in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq but I will add only this--no one (except birthers) relies on Minor V. Happersett for reasons already stated above. It was U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that settled this question (about whether citizen parents are required) and the finding in that case established the precedent that is still the law of the land today. Mystylplx (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the reliable sources already cited in this article state that birth alone in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. If no-citizen parents are sufficient, then two-citizen parents are necessarily also sufficient. --Weazie (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there may still be a "failure to communicate" here regarding the question of whether or not "natural-born citizen" and "citizen at birth" mean the same thing. Wong Kim Ark certainly settled the question of whether a US-born child of alien parents was a citizen at birth — but the Supreme Court didn't explicitly find Wong to be a "natural-born citizen" (nor did it need to, since Wong wasn't trying to run for President or Vice-President). While I personally believe it is self-evidently obvious that "natural-born citizen" and "citizen at birth" are literal synonyms, I recognize that not everyone agrees — and, indeed, I believe the whole point of having this article in the first place is that there have been many and varied interpretations of "natural-born citizen" over the years. Any position that meets the requirements of NPOV should, to the best of my understanding, be included here. — Richwales 07:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is some disagreement on that. What there is agreement on (except for birthers) is that there are only two kinds of citizenship, natural born and naturalized, and that anyone born on the soil is natural born. The disagreement arises over whether those born outside U.S. jurisdiction and eligible for citizenship from birth by statute, due solely to their parents citizenship, are natural born or naturalized by statute. That idea comes from the dicta in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. To my knowledge there are no serious scholars who think citizen parents are required for those who are born on the soil, though, so this article should reflect that fact. Mystylplx (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is contrary to WP policy for WP editors to determine through original research that (quoting from above) "[w]hat there is agreement on (except for birthers) is that there are only two kinds of citizenship, natural born and naturalized, and that anyone born on the soil is natural born" and, based on such determination, to place an assertion to that effect in a WP article. If reliable sources assert that such agreement does and/or does not exist, such assertions should be given due weight in WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources do say that, are already cited and are already in the article. Thanks. Mystylplx (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommended new source

CRS published an extensive exposition on the NBCC within the past 90 days. You can read all 53 pages of it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf Cheers! Foofighter20x (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's already cited in the article, but I agree it is the best and most credible and detailed source on this topic that exists. Mystylplx (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 2011 CRS is not cited in the article (the 2000 and 2009 memos are). IIRC, there were vague WP:RS concerns (as it is a primary source). --Weazie (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's citation #1. Mystylplx (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So it is. "Nevermind." --Weazie (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Vattel as 'possible source?'

It's hard to see how Vattel could be a 'possible source' considering the fact he never used the phrase "Natural born citizen." He wrote in French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens" in an English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was written. But if anyone can find an wp:rs saying Vattel was a possible source then we can include it. But wp:rs doesn't include birther sites or the dissent (the side that lost, thus their opinions were rejected) in court cases. Mystylplx (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur that WP:RS is needed to support the concept that de Vattel was a possible source used by the Framers; the previous language relied on WP:OR. Having said that, de Vattel was cited (in dissent, usually) in some court cases; his citation in those cases might be relevant in discussing those specific cases. --Weazie (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I could support a slightly wider use of judicial dissents. Since there appears to be a legitimate difference of mainstream opinion regarding exactly what a "natural born citizen" is, I would be comfortable with acknowledging judicial dissents, remarks in the Congressional Record, writings of the Founding Fathers, etc. which illustrate the range of opinion. Such material should, of course, preferably be cited indirectly via reliable secondary sources, and it must not be given undue weight or used as part of a claim that some particular interpretation is obviously correct but has been suppressed as part of an overarching conspiracy. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that judicial dissents could be valuable if we find them mentioned in secondary sources. Really, we should try to find secondary sources even for the majority opinions, as court decisions are primary sources and interpreting what they mean can be tricky and might constitute original research. But if/when we do mention them it should be noted the opinion came from the dissent and thus has no legal or precedential weight. Mystylplx (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 68.170.209.229 has again added back the Vattel reference, despite the request that this be disucussed here. (And, obviously, there was no attempt to discuss.) --Weazie (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IP has 68.170.209.222 added back this language. --Weazie (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to see how Vattel could not be considered a possible source considering his book is perhaps the earliest use of the phrase “ natural born citizen”, though he did write it in French terms of 1758. He wrote "Les Naturales ou indigènes", but that does not literally translate to the “naturals or natives”. He used “Naturales” as a noun identifying his subject. Then he used “Indigène” as an adjective to describe the “Naturales”. In French Indigène as an adjective is translated as native-born. So a more accurate direct translation would be “the naturals or native-born”. However, translated into proper English this was rendered “natural born”. This interpretation was confirmed in the 1797 translation of The Law of Nations as being understood to mean natural born citizen.

There is further evidence that the French “naturels” was understood to mean “natural born” at the time of the drafting of the constitution. In diplomatic correspondence from the Minister of France to the Continental Congress in 1781 it reads, “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. “ This was translated by Charles Thomson who later would be the secretary of the Continental Congress to read, “The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. “ This can be found in the Library of Congress Journals of the Continental Congress in article 3. This correspondence predates the letter that John Jay wrote to George Washington in 1787 in which he also used the phrase “natural born Citizen “, and cautioned against foreigners being given access to the position of commander and chief of the American army.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that the founders accepted Vattel's definition and did not just require a president to be born a citizen is that they rejected the wording in Alexander Hamilton's plan which called for the president to merely “be born a Citizen”. They instead adopted the to them familiar and stricter wording of “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. -T.J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.156.28 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that posits the above connection. No matter how obvious the "evidence" is to you that this has got to be a "possible source", your proposed connection is original research unless you can cite secondary sources that have made the same claim. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that his book didn't use the phrase "natural born citizen." That didn't come out until an English translation ten years after the Constitution was ratified. Indeed, the first Congress (made up of may of the framers) rejected David Ramsays arguments that citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizens. In fact, if you actually read Vattel it's clear the framers disagreed with him on many things--Vattel thought the most important job of the state was to establish a state mandated religion, the framers prohibited that. Vattel disagreed with ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of press, which the framers adopted. Vattel thought only aristocrats should be allowed to own weapons--the framers gave us the second amendment right to bear arms. But if in spite of all that you can find reliable secondary sources that claim him as a possible source then they should be included. Mystylplx (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor Dumas sent 3 French copies to Benjamin Franklin who used de Vattel's Law of Nations, and deposited one copy in the Library Company of Philadelphia. de Vattel is known to have influenced the drafters of the original constitution. Vattel, The Law Of Nations, Preface to the 1999 digital edition, by John Roland. See p xxx Considering the uncertainties, it is better to err on the side of giving readers more information with suitable disclaimers as needed, rather than no information. DLH (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that violates WP:RS and WP:OR. --Weazie (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Weazie just wiped out a major section that had been previously accepted that I had rearranged a bit.DLH (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, inclusion of this material violates many wikipedia policies (original research, reliable source, primary, synthesis). --Weazie (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is summarizing historic evidence with documented references. Vattel is commonly cited in legal cases on the issue. Weazie appears to be imposing his POV against all evidence.DLH (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS that says that, please cite it. --Weazie (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's little evidence that Vattel had much influence on the framers. They did read him, but then they were educated men. He's nowhere mentioned in the Convention Debate notes nor the Federalist papers though, and that certainly doesn't give great credence to the level of his purported influence. Additionally, Vattel used the phrase "naturals ou indigines." Which literally translated means "The naturals or natives." Notice that even in the french the words "natural and native" are synonyms. He explicitly defines them to be synonyms. I don't disagree that "natural born citizen" may well be also a synonym for both other terms.

But it really doesn't matter as the English terms 'naturals' 'natives' and 'natural born citizens' were all already well known and there's literally zero reason to think that the framers, who were writing in English, needed to go to a Swiss Philosopher writing in French to inform the meanings of their English usage. Mystylplx (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Evidence for Vattel as a Reliable Source WP:RSDLH (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Albert de Laapradelle Introduction to Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations . . . Translation of the Edition of 1758, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, 1916, p. xxx, p xxxiv.]

From 1776 to 1783 the more the United States progressed, the greater the influence of de Vattel. In 1780 his Law of the Nations was a classic, a text book in universities" . .. Of all the authors . . . not one is more often nor more copiously quoted than Vattel.

DLH (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2) The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States Jesse S. Reeves The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 3, Jul., 1909 p 549

At the time of the American Revolution, the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular if not the most authoritative of the Continental writers. . . . Possibly after the Revolution Vattel is quoted more frequently than his predecessors.

DLH (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

3) The Authority of Vattell, Charles Fenwick, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, Aug., 1913, p 395,396

A century ago, not even the name of Grotius himself was more potent in the influence upon questions relating to international law than that of Vattel. . . . Or is it that both the principles and rules as expounded and defined by de Vattel have become so universally accepted that the very statement of them is sufficient without further proof or authority."

DLH (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes that Vattel was an influential writer of his time. But those nonspecific quotes about Vattel's influence still do not demonstrate Vattel's writings influenced the framer's definition of natural-born citizenship. As noted last year, Vattel is nowhere mentioned in the Convention Debate notes nor the Federalist papers. --Weazie (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Before discussing what subjects can be introduced as germane to the topic, shouldn't we clearly establish what the topic is? This is extremely difficult with the article being constantly renamed, apparently according to the whim of the latest editor to happen along at the moment. The most recent move is a case in point. The article was (briefly) named "Natural Born Citizen Clause". That title clearly limits the topic to a specific clause of the U.S. Constitution, and arguments to exclude Vattel as not being shown by reliable sources to be related to the topic are appropriate. However, if the topic is a broader concept of "natural born citizen", as the current title implies, then Wikipedia must approach the topic from an international viewpoint, and Vattel's work seems to be a perfectly admissible source as a discussion of the concept. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should stick to a title. Someone a ways back changed it to simply "citizenship requirements for President of the United States, which is clearly inappropriate, so I changed it to 'Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.' It looks like it's been changed several times since then for inexplicable reasons. The title should definitely mention we are talking about the U.S. Constitution and needs to specifically say 'Natural born citizen clause.' However, whatever the article is currently (and temporarily) what the entire article is about is the 'Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution I will change it back in hopes this silliness stops. Mystylplx (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I participated in that somewhat by dropping the single quotation marks you had included in the title; then on 4 April, User:Savidan shortened it (and added a cap) to "Natural Born Citizen Clause", stating – correctly, it seems to me – that this formulation is more consistent with other similar articles (see {{US Constitution}}). I agree the article has been principally about the U.S. constitutional aspects from the beginning; the article native-born citizen seems to be a fork to the more generic concept. My preference would be User:Savidan's more concise, proper-noun version, since WP naming conventions discourage unnecessary length or disambiguation; but no matter what, it would probably help what little article stability there is if a consensus title could be arrived at and move-protected (in checking spelling, I also noticed that Savidan is an admin, so could probably help with clean-up of unnecessary redirects and protection at the same time). Comments? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of 'Natural-born citizen' scrubbed - Why?

Why has most of the information historically in this entry been deleted? POV war? See: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293069 'Natural-born citizen' info vanishes off Wikipedia] DLH (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because World Net Daily either has no idea how a wiki works, or is deliberately obfuscating to sell more copies of Corsi's book. The information that they say is missing is indeed still in the article, at least it was 5 minutes ago when I checked. Junggai (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Any proof given that Obama is not a natural born citizen, or even a citizen at all, will be scrubbed from this site. I've attempted to place evidence that Hawaii Governor Ambercrombie stated he could not find the birth certificate, among other evidence that Obama is an usurper. WiKi will not allow the truth since they are an obviously pro-Obama site. This verifies that Wiki is not a factual site but what THEY believe is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.92.132 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not 'scrubbed' from this site. The 'proof' is not proof, there are no reliable sources making the claims you are trying to insert. The Earth is not flat, the moon isn't made of cheese, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Most editors are just tired of continually explaining this to people the over and over. Dave Dial (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution - Law of Nations referenced

Law of Nations

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Law of Nations

The Law of Nations, published in 1758[4] was a reference much used by the Continental Congress.[5] The Law of Nations states, "natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."[6] The actual original Constitution of the United States of America does have a reference to the Law of Nations, in Article I, Section 8, authorizing the Congress the power to 'define' and punish, "offenses against the Law of Nations.[7]

Sempi (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Citing two references is not synthesizing. Synthesizing is combining two references into one statement. RE: Fat&Happy (talk), Loonymonkey (talk) Sempi (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstanding of your argument here, is it your contention that the U.S. Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to punish offenses against rules and precepts described by a Swiss philosopher, Emerich de Vattel, in his book The Law of Nations? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not making any arguments or contentions. I'm merely citing the US Constitution and the Law of Nations. Check the references. So what is your argument for using the excuse of "synthesis" for deleting them? Sempi (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Text added to an article has to have a purpose. That purpose needs to be clear, because text which is added so the reader can infer stuff if they want to connect the dots in a certain way is definitely SYNTH. If you explain the purpose of the proposed text, it may be possible to rewrite it so that its purpose is clear, and then its merits can be assessed. Re the second reference (a book by Emer de Vattel): does the proposed text suggest that the text in that book is somehow relevant to the "natural born citizen of the United States" status of a person? If so, what reliable source verifies that? Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Synthesis by juxtaposition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are twisting the definition of synthesis. The subject under which these references were added is "Possible Sources." Clearly, if a book contains "natural-born citizen" then it is a possible source for the term, especially if the book was published prior to the usage. However, how is such a source specifically relevant to the United States? It is relevant because the Law of Nations was used as a reference by the founders, and is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Rather than blindly arguing, actually take a look at the reference provided. "Law of Nations" is given capitalized as a title in Section 8 of the actual Constitution. See image below.

Sempi (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To claim that (section 8) is a reference to Vattels treatise is a mistake on the par of believing any Preacher using the phrase "Angels and Demons" must have been referring to the book by Dan Brown. They are clearly referring to the literal law of nations (international law) and not Vattels treatise. Mystylplx (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

False, you obviously did not look at the reference. The Law of Nations is given as a title in the US Constitution. It is not, "law of nations," but instead, "Law of Nations." Here is an image of the original US Constitution as referenced:

Sempi (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense is not acceptable because it is in a section titled "Nonsense". The "Possible Sources" section probably needs drastic reworking to fit Wikipedia's policies, rather than adding more stuff that might be related to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Sempi (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sempi, I'm afraid you are incorrect on this one. The capitalization of that phrase is not a reference to Vattel's work. You are viewing the capitalization of the phrase through modern spectacles, instead of seeing it through the correct lens of that period's rules of grammar. Look at the rest of the Constitution and notice that all nouns are capitalized. That's in keeping with English grammar of the time. Since the name of international law in that period was "the law of nations," it would have been capitalized as a proper name/noun. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If the phrase in the Constitution is meant to refer specifically to de Vattel's book, titled The Law of Nations, why is the first word of the title, the, not capitalized? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The same way we might title a copy of the Constitution, "The Constitution," yet refer to it within a sentence as, "the Constitution." Sempi (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The point about capitalization is meaningless since practically every other word in that section is capitalized (as you must have seen before you cropped the image down to just those words). But more to the point, are you really arguing that the U.S. Constitution singled out one book and expressly gave congress permission to punish any offenses against that book? Really? They don't mention offenses against the bible, why would they mention offenses against Vatel's book? That's just nutty. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutty is ignoring the facts in front of your face and trying to dismiss them. All important nouns are capitalized. For example, in the same line, Piracies and Felonies are crimes, and high Seas is a term in Maritime Law, referring to any sea which is outside the territorial waters of a state. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem too, the line begins with "To define," this doesn't mean that Congress is supposed to punish all offenses against the Law of Nations, but rather define or decide what shall be relevant. In fact, the founders decided that natural born citizen would be relevant and included it in the Constitution solely as a requirement for those wishing to serve as President. Senators and Representatives are only required to be citizens.

This clause of the US Constitution authorizes Congress the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. High Seas refers to sea outside the jurisdiction of nations based upon Maritime Law, and the Law of Nations is a basis of national law. It does not literally mean "high seas," as in seas that are high, nor "law of nations," as in all law of nations. These are capitalized because they are references to specific law. Sempi (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While agreeing with what most everyone, has said, I thought it might be useful to summarize a few of the points Sempi is confused about.

1. "Law of Nations" was not the title of the section. The title of the section is Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress

1. All nouns in the Constitution were capitalized. Indeed, the entire section is "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; Maybe we should be searching for books entitled "Piracies and Felonies?" Or perhaps the real book we are looking for is "Offenses against the Law of Nations" (which is nothing Vattel ever wrote...)

1. What would an offense against a book even mean? It makes far more sense to simply read what it says and understand they are saying that crimes committed outside U.S. legal jurisdiction (the high Seas) are handled by Congress.... which is, after all, what it actually says. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

1. No claim was ever made that Law of Nations was the title of the section. In fact, the correct title was given in the reference. So, besides being wrong, what is your point?

2. "Offenses" is not capitalized, nor are all nouns. This is simply false, and the rest of your notes ridiculous.

3. "Offenses against the Law of Nations," is no different a phrase than, "offenses against the Constitution."

Sempi (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's time to close this discussion as the opinions of editors on the article topic are not relevant. If there is a reliable source that makes some point, we can discuss whether it is due, and whether to include it in the article. However, there is no such source with information on the topic of the article. Johnuniq (talk)

03:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has just turned into a rant. It's obvious by now that no reliable sources will be forthcoming. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd. This article is about the Natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution. There are no sources more reliable than the original US Constitution itself and the Law of Nations as cited therein, for the source of the "natural born citizen" clause. You are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Why? The Constitution is not a reliable source for the Constitution?

How about you explain why the Constitution, and Law of Nations are not reliable sources. That would be more appropriate, given that one source is the subject itself, and the other is mentioned within the subject. The burden of proof is upon you to show why you think these are not reliable sources.Sempi (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The exact phrase as it was written in the Constitution including capitalizations, but with emphasis added. The entire Constitution is written that way.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

"offenses" is not capitalized that is a small cursive "o." Sempi (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the lowercase 'O' in the word "of" and compare it to the capitalized "O" in the word "Offenses." Then look at the entire rest of the Constitution and notice that all nouns are capitalized. The word "offenses" in the sentence in question is a noun. Mystylplx (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now let's get back to reliable sources saying Vattel was influential in determining the meaning of a well understood English phrase. Got any?Mystylplx (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20

By Colonial Society of Massachusetts [8]

The third work by a master of the Law between Nations that came to Harvard College in the colonial period was that of the Swiss publicist, Emerich de Vattel. It is entitled, Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle. A copy of the English translation of the first French edition of 1758 was published at London in 1760, and was received at Harvard before 1773, while the Leyden edition of 1758 appears in the Catalogue of 1790, and may have been received at any time after 1764. The Library Company of Philadelphia likewise possessed in colonial days a copy of the English translation of 1760. Just as the colonies declared their independence another copy of Vattel was presented to Harvard College. This Harvard copy belongs to the edition of 1775, published at the Hague and edited by Charles Guillaume Frecleric Dumas. In 1775 Dumas, who was employed at the Hague as an agent of the colonists, sent, as we learn from a letter he wrote from the Hague on June 30th to Franklin and now among the Franklin papers in the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, three copies of his new edition of the treatise of the Swiss publicist to Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia, one of them being intended for the Library Company of Philadelphia, a second for Franklin himself, and the third for a library in one of the other colonies. In October of 1775, Franklin gave one copy to the Philadelphia Library Company, which was then housed in Carpenter's Hall; and Franklin tells us that that copy was much used by the members of the First Continental Congress. A second copy he kept for himself. It is not known where that copy now is; possibly it has helped to feed some paper mill.1 The third copy, in accordance with Dumas's written wish, Franklin sent on in the summer of 1776 to James Bowdoin, afterwards governor of Massachusetts and a member of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, for presentation to the library of Harvard College. Bowdoin gave it to the College Library as a gift from Franklin/but it was really Dumas's gift, and so his name should have been entered as the donor.2 Franklin's great opinion of Harvard College is shown by the fact that he sent its library the third copy of Vattel. ... That copy of Vattel, in conjunction with the one in Philadelphia, has an especial interest for the student of International Law. For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document. By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land. And if we remember that Vattel's treatise was recognized in all the Foreign Offices of Europe at that time as the leading authority of the day upon questions of International Law, it may be said that in an actual sense Dumas, as the purveyor of knowledge to the statesmen of the United States of America concerning the Law of Nations, was in a sense the sponsor of the Law of Nations among us. And as that treatise was written by a citizen of Switzerland, a country which up to that time had done more than any other to develop the Law of Neutrality, and as Vattel himself had stated the conception of neutrality probably with more clearness than any publicist up to the time he wrote, it was eminently fitting that the young member of the family of Nations, the United States of America, should help to expand the Law of Neutrality. And, much more than any other Nation, our country has shaped the expansion of the Law of Neutrality. In sending us three copies of the treatise of Vattel, Dumas, as well as the publicist of Neuchatel, helped to influence our course in the early years of the Republic under Washington and Jefferson, and even afterwards, in moulding the expansion of the Law between Nations.

 Sempi (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, maybe you can point me to the part of that which indicates that the Founding Fathers used Vattel's book to define 'natural born citizen'? I ask, because that passage only seems to indicate, in general, Vattel was well regarded as being a good writer about the laws governing nations that already existed, and probably influenced the Founding Fathers when writing parts of the Constitution, and that Benjamin Franklin received three copies of the book in question, two of which were to be passed on to other people, not all the Founding Fathers accepted, without alteration or difference, how Vattel defined a 'natural born citizen', which, as Mystylplx already pointed out, was already a well understood phrase in English. Oh, and, as for your comment, further up this page, about the Constitution not being a reliable source about the Constitution - it is a reliable source about what the Constitution actually says. However, it is not a reliable source for your belief that the phrase 'law of nations' in the Constitution must refer to Vattel's book, especially as the full title of that book, in English, is actually, 'The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns', not just, 'The Law of Nations'. 86.164.13.4 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Grasping at straws. Sempi (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite answering a post asking you to do this, you have failed to point to the part in your source which indicates that the Founding Fathers used Vattel's book to define 'natural born citizen'. I will take this as evidence that you are unable to as this part does not exist. As such, unfortunately, this source does not indicate that the removed passage, or any other, from Vattel's book, is actually relevant to this article. Feel free to go back and correct me by pointing to that part, however. 86.161.121.19 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me a source that indicates that any of the "possible sources" were used to define 'natural born citizen,'

You are trying to hold me to a higher standard than the current references, which I have already surpassed. None of the current sources directly reference that they were used to define 'natural born citizen.' Arguably, this is why they are under a headline of "possible sources."

However, what have I shown? I shall spell it out for you in baby portions since you are failing to read for yourself:

1) Congress and the founders did in fact use multiple copies of Vattel's Law of Nations before writing the US Constitution. The source I cited states;

a. "Franklin tells us that that copy was much used by the members of the First Continental Congress." Much used reference!

b. "For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document."

c. "By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land."

d. "And if we remember that Vattel's treatise was recognized in all the Foreign Offices of Europe at that time as the leading authority of the day upon questions of International Law, it may be said that in an actual sense Dumas, as the purveyor of knowledge to the statesmen of the United States of America concerning the Law of Nations, was in a sense the sponsor of the Law of Nations among us."

e. "In sending us three copies of the treatise of Vattel, Dumas, as well as the publicist of Neuchatel, helped to influence our course in the early years of the Republic under Washington and Jefferson, and even afterwards, in moulding the expansion of the Law between Nations."

2) The original US Constitution has a reference to "Law of Nations."

3) The Law of Nations has a reference to "natural born citizen."

Sempi (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll address what you've written in order:

For your point about sources, the Oxford English Dictionary is...erm...a dictionary. As such, it gives the definitions of what words actually mean, in this case, in the English language. The inclusion of that simply indicates what would be meant by 'natural born citizen' if the Founding Fathers simply used the plain meaning of the words they wrote. If you're demanding a cite to prove that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition is relevant, you're basically asking for a cite that the Constitution was written in English. The second source, added after my previous comment, is William Blackstone's commentaries on English Law. For this, you actually have a point, there is no source indicating it's relevant, and I actually agree that it should be removed, unless such a source is added. However, somewhat ironically, if I remember correctly, when Dumas sent Franklin these copies of the then latest edition of Vattel's book, he included a note to the effect of, 'my advice is to adopt English Law but throw out all the hereditary nobility crap', so that could be the source needed for this. For the next source, the 1732 Charter for Georgia, that indicates that it was part of the state law of at least one state that 'natural born citizenship' is conferred merely by being born in that state. When writing the Constitution, the states that were going to be subject to this Constitution had input into the writing of it. A clause determining who can be elected President is a fairly important part of the Constitution. As for the Naturalization Acts of New York (1770), yes, there is no source saying that the definition of 'natural born citizen' given there was used by the Founding Fathers - principally because there is no such definition given. I am therefore a bit mystified as to how sources can be provided, as you demand, proving the relevance of a definition that is not given. The next two sources are a delegate in the Constitutional Convention submitting what basically amounts to an early draft of the clause in question, and one of the other Founding Fathers sending a message about the subject matter of the clause directly to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. Why you think an additional cite, over and above them simply being what they are, is required to prove their relevance is beyond me, as they are clearly indicative that some of the Founding Fathers believed that the the Constitution needed a 'natural born citizen' clause, which is probably why it was written with one. However, again, they do not actually contain any definition of 'natural born citizen', so to demand a cite proving the definition given was used, frankly, shows you simply have not read the parts of the article you're criticising.

For your 'spelling out' of what your source says:

1a & b) There is no indication that Vattel's idea of 'natural born citizen' was the part that was used, and, as Mystylplx pointed out, that phrase wasn't even used in Vattel's book at the time.

1c) You're making the same mistake again. This is not referring to Vattel's book, it's referring to the subject itself that Vattel wrote about. You're just getting confused by the capitalisation, which is done weirdly, by modern standards. For proof of that, you just need to note that 'Law of Neutrality' is also capitalised.

1d & e) Again, the closest you're getting to proving that Vattel's book has anything to do with the Constitution's idea of 'natural born citizen' is pointing out that this source claims that Vattel, in general, probably influenced the Founding Fathers when writing unspecified parts of the Constitution.

2 & 3) Again, there is no real evidence that the reference to 'law of nations' in the Constitution is referring to Vattel's book. 86.161.122.72 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All you've shown was that Franklin received a gift, wrote a nice thank you note (Gosh I LOVE that polkadot tie! I wear it all the time! Really!) Then later regifted that gift to someone else. The fact remains--nowhere in the Convention debate notes nor any of the Federalist papers is Vattel once mentioned. And the Bill of rights stands as an example of to just what a great degree the framers disagreed with Vattel. Nothing in that passage gives any explanation of why the framers would have needed a Swiss philosopher, writing in French, to understand the meanings of commonly understood English words or phrases. But if you have an template:reliable source that agrees with you, and if it is credible and doesn't show undue weight, then it 'should be included in the article. Mystylplx (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true, see above source which sates that Vattel was much used by members of Congress. Now the Oxford Dictionary with, "natural born," as a possible source for "natural born citizen?" Where is the Oxford Dictionary referenced?

Clearly you guys have a bias, you are not editors, but instead censors. Sempi (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this establishes that Vattel was consulted by the authors of the constitution on the specific meaning of the term "natural born citizen." This is purely your speculation, and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Law of Nations was in fact used as a reference by the authors of the Constitution. The Law of Nations does in fact specifically define "natural born citizen." The Constitution itself does in fact have a Law of Nations reference. Therefore, the Law of Nations is in fact a possible source of "natural born citizen." We don't have a definite source yet, but given these facts, it could be argued that the Law of Nations is one of the most likely sources.

See above, "By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land." Sempi (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you do not have a source that connects the wording in the constitution with Vattel. Even if it were true that every person involved in the drafting were an avid fan of Vattel, and even if they took the words from Vattel's book, that would still not show that they intended Vattel's book to be part of the constitution (i.e. to understand the "natural born" phrase, you need to read Vattel's book). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording in the Law of Nations matches the wording in the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution used the Law of Nations as a reference before writing the Constitution, and the Law of Nations is referenced in the Constitution. Obviously, the Law of Nations, referenced by the authors, and containing the same phrase as the authors used in the Constitution, is a possible source for the very phrase it defines. Sempi (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That kind of statement is known as WP:OR and is not acceptable to verify text in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "natural born citizen" wasn't in Vattels original treatise. It was added into an English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was written. Unless the framers had the ability to see into the future it's hard to see how Vattel could be a possible source. But again, if you can find a reliable source stating Vattel was a possible source of that clause then produce it and we'll mention him as a possible source. Mystylplx (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"A copy of the English translation of the first French edition of 1758 was published at London in 1760, and was received at Harvard before 1773..." - learn to read Mystylplx, or stop lying.

True, but said English translation did not use the phrase "natural born citizen." It translated Vattels French as "natives or indigenes." Vattel never used the phrase "natural born citizen" in French nor English. There were actually two English translations of Vattels treatise that came out prior to the ratification. Neither of them used the phrase "natural born citizen." It was only in the 3rd English translation, that didn't come out until 10 years after the Constitution was ratified that the phrase "natural born citizen was introduced to his work. Mystylplx (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, many of the "Possible sources" in the article now are not even literal equivalents, nor did any sources listed in the article ever have any reference to being specifically used as the source of the "natrual born citizen" clause. Many of you users here are abusing the editing of this article by deleting sources which are more relevant and referenced than any current or previous ones. Action needs to be taken against the abuse of your privileges. Sempi (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All of them can be reasonably inferred by any intelligent person to be a possible source without resorting to wp:or. The same thing can not be said about Vattel, who never, in any language, used the phrase natural born citizen. Mystylplx (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Law of Nations is the English translation which was used by Congress prior to authoring the Constitution. I am not specifically quoting Vattel verbally. Mystylplx, stop vandalizing fully referenced sources used by the authors of the Constitution, and which contain the exact natural born citizen clause. You are going to be reported for abuse. Sempi (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The "exact natural born citizen clause" was not in any of the translations available at the time from 'any' vattel translations. Nor in any way did he say it in French. Please stop vandalizing this article with unsourced WP:OR] that doesn't even make sense. Mystylplx (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are your references? You never post any. It's always your own hearsay. Have you posted even a single source for the authors of the Constitution using any reference at all? Your game of vandalizing and lying about the Law of Nations is over. Sempi (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Two more IP drive-by attempts to insert Vattel this week. Time for semi-protection again? --Weazie (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that a brief mention of Vattel would be appropriate in the "Academic and legal publications" subsection — along with a comment that Vattel's views (containing the phrase "natural-born citizens", albeit translated into English after the Constitution was written) were cited approvingly in Dred Scott v. Sandford, as well as in the dissent of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Mentioning Vattel in this way would seem to satisfy Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources (i.e., the Supreme Court opinions) — and it would not, in my view, require anyone to suggest that his work was or was not particularly influential to the framers of the Constitution (only that some Supreme Court justices writing decades later considered it relevant), thus avoiding the main objection we raised earlier. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with something along that line. After the latest attempts to add Vattel unsourced, I was trying to come up with a way of mentioning his existence without claiming his definition is controlling. Your suggestion would seem to accomplish that. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the deed. Note that I'm specifically referencing how Vattel was quoted in Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark, without getting into any detail about whether the phrase "natural-born citizen" occurred in any English translation available to the framers of the Constitution. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted. Wong Kim Ark and Dred Scott are both cases; the section following "Academic and legal publications" is the case law section. Moreover, the Vattel reference is expressly mentioned in the discussion about Wong Kim Ark (and implied in the Dred Scott discussion) -- no need to repeat. Again, it is undue weight to mention Vattel in that section, especially since Blackstone, etc. are not also mentioned in that section. --Weazie (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must disagree, and I've put it back. Vattel is hardly mentioned at all in this article, and adding this one sentence does not (IMO) break WP:UNDUE. As for Blackstone, I believe a better solution would be to add something from Blackstone to this section, rather than use its absence as a justification for excluding or removing other material. Our earlier objection to Vattel was because people were trying to promote a fringe theory without legitimate sources; that's not what's happening here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree with you. Vattel is hardly mentioned in this article because no reliable source has ever said he influenced the meaning of this clause. The fact that a few Supreme Court justices cited Vattel to support their arguments is fine to mention in the discussion about those specific cases -- there is no reason to add the justices' discussion of Vattel when the very next section is dedicated to the cases that have mentioned the topic. But as it is now, Vattel's "famous" sentence is fully written out twice in this article. Why? Elevating Vattel, without supporting authority, is placing undue weight on his work. This article is a poor excuse of cherry-picked primary sources, but that is no reason to enlarge the cherry-picking. --Weazie (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We may need to "agree to disagree". I am, however, OK with your current edits ([9]). Specifically, I'm happy with the removal of the material about Vattel from the discussion of Wong Kim Ark, and although you removed citations to two sources (the Han and Chin papers), that should be OK because these sources are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I'm also OK with your moving the Vattel paragraph farther down in the "Academic and legal publications" subsection; I had originally put it first because Vattel's work was chronologically before Rawle, but it's legitimate to list Vattel after Rawle because the Supreme Court decisions citing Vattel (Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark) occurred after Rawle. Regarding the focus (or lack thereof) in this article in general, I agree there is a problem here w/r/t original intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause vs. later efforts to interpret it (including the effect, if any, of the 14th Amendment). For the time being, however, I am inclined to say we're better off keeping material (rather than summarily discarding it) as we (hopefully) strive to improve the overall quality of the article. As for Vattel, I am definitely not willing to tolerate any fringe theories that unduly inflate the importance of his work as the supposed hidden key to understanding the Constitution, but at the same time I believe his work is sufficiently worthy of note to be mentioned here (and that a dogged refusal to mention him at all is asking for its own brand of difficulty). Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The naked inclusion of Vattel violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (and WP:UNDUE) as there are no secondary sources cited to merit the inclusion. There are several secondary sources cited in this article; none of them make more than a passing reference to Vattel -- that you, personally, believe his work is noteworthy is irrelevant. This article is full of such OR cherry-picking: it needs to be removed; at a minimum, it need not be expanded upon. --Weazie (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no one here read the Blackstone Commentaries? Funny since he has a whole chapter titled "Of Offenses against the Law of Nations" and that entire Article in the US Constitution deals exactly with what Blackstone wrote about. http://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm and http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-405.htm Deelite310 (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)