Just a quick side note...

During the Vietnam War, if you received an "induction" (military draft) notice, such notice HAD to be issued by a local draft board comprised SOLELY of residents of the jurisdiction in which you lived. As Hillary might ask, "What difference does it make?" Who cares whether you are sent to your death by a neighbor or a stranger? The end result is the same.

Nevertheless, at one time in US history, if you were going to be drafted into the military, you at least had the right to be drafted with dignity. You had the right to NOT suffer the indignity of being sent to war by an outsider. You had the right to be conscripted ONLY by persons who belong to YOUR community.

On several occasions, the Federal Courts have invalidated induction notices issued by draft boards whose members were not exclusively residents of the inductees' jurisdiction.

Likewise, the Framers of the Constitution believed that, if you are going to be sent into battle and possibly die for your country, you at least deserve the dignity of being sent there by someone who is an American by birth, i.e., by someone whose allegiance has always been, from birth, to the United States exclusively. No American soldier should ever suffer the indignity of serving under foreign command or dying as a result of a decision or order issued by a "foreigner".

The stated purpose of the "natural born citizen" provision was to exclude foreigners from the presidency. A "foreigner" was anyone either foreign-born or who acquired US citizenship artificially by naturalization statutes enacted by Congress. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the federal courts have consistently held that a child born on US soil, to a foreign-citizen father, did not acquire US citizenship at birth. His citizenship at birth was that of his father, not his birthplace. Moreover, such a person was not only a "foreigner" but continued to be a "foreigner" even after his naturalization.

QUOTE: All men not born in the United States are to them foreigners, and they are aliens till naturalized. A naturalized person is a citizen; but we still call him a foreigner by birth. (Webster: foreigner, 1828) http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/foreigner

Yes, the Framers of the Constitution appear to have make a distinction between (a) foreign nationality acquired at birth through no fault of your own, and (b) foreign nationality acquired by choice in later life. Given that the stated purpose of the "natural born citizen" provision was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency, and given that natural born citizenship pertains only to one's status at the time of one's birth, it appears that the ONLY foreigners the provision could have possibly excluded were persons who were foreigners at birth. Nothing in the US Constitution precludes the President from becoming a foreign citizen in later life (provided, of course, that acquisition of foreign citizenship does not result in loss of US citizenship).

The American courts have repeatedly and consistently held that there is no difference (and no one may discriminate) between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen, other than with regard to presidential eligibility. I wouldn't characterize presidential ineligibility as a "penalty" as such. Running for President is a privilege, not a right.

I don't see where Jefferson and Madison owed "allegiance" to any foreign country. They never renounced their allegiance to the US, and they never took an oath of allegiance to France. They merely accepted a title bestowed upon them. In any event, since they were already US citizens when the Constitution was adopted, they were exempt from the "natural born citizen" eligibility requirement.

The problem with two or more countries making competing claims to an individual's allegiance at birth is that it opens up a nasty "can of worms". Not all countries allow expatriation on request. There is also the issue of HOW and WHY a child became subject to competing claims of allegiance. Perhaps it was a simple accident of circumstance. Perhaps it was something not so innocent. In any case, one's citizenship at the time of one's birth is often a predictor, or precursor, to the manner of one' s upbringing; and one's upbringing does influence one's decision-making in later life.

The Framers of the Constitution felt it was necessary to disallow foreigners-at-birth from the presidency, in order to protect the presidency from foreign influence. We always have the option of amending the Constitution and removing the natural born citizen requirement. Until then, it is part of the Constitution, and either we respect it or we simply ignore it.

Thanks for the info. I defer to your understanding of the Vattel's meaning in the original French.

Just to clarify, in the English language, there is a distinction between a "natural citizen" and a "natural born citizen". The phrase "natural citizen" appears in Knolles' English translation (1606) of Jean Bodin's, Les Six livres de la Republique ("The Six Books of the Republic") which was immensely popular and influential in 17th century England. In Knolles' translation, "the natural Citizen is he that is free of that wherein he is born; whether he be born but of one of his parents a Citizen, or of both of them Citizens."

A later English translation by Tooley reads, "The natural citizen is the free subject who is a native of the commonwealth, in that both, or one or other of his parents, was born there."

According to Bodin, one's birthplace is irrelevant to one's citizenship at birth: "For the place maketh not the child of a Stranger (man or woman) to be a citizen: and he that was born in Africk of two Roman citizens is no less a citizen, than if he had been born in Rome." (Knolles, p.49).

Apparently the English phrase "natural citizen" (not to be confused with "natural born citizen") refers to a person who, regardless of his birthplace, acquires citizenship at birth by descent from at least one of his parents.

Although Vattel does not use the phrase "natural citizen", he nevertheless seems to support the notion that one naturally receives, at birth, the citizenship of one's father, regardless of one's place of birth. On the other hand, the Vattelian definition of "native" requires something more than mere citizenship by descent from a parent. In order to qualify as a "native" of a country, one must be born in that country.

In 1797 (ten years AFTER the Constitution was written), someone decided to revise the English translation of Law of Nations so that the Vattelian "native " is equated with "natural born citizen". The information you provided supports my belief that the use of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the English translation of Law of Nations does not conclusively establish the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution.

The phrase "natural born" comes from English law, not Vattel. With very few exceptions, English law deemed ALL English subjects -- including naturalized subjects, foreign-born subjects, and persons born on English soil to alien parents -- to be natural-born in the general sense. But you were natural-born in the actual or literal sense only if you were born within the realm, of parents (plural) BOTH of whom owe allegiance to the sovereign of that realm (see Cunningham's definition cited earlier).

Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary (1782) was THE most widely used English law dictionary during the time period in which the Constitution was written. Foreign born children of English parents, and English-born children of alien parents, acquire "subject" status at birth ONLY because Parliament had enacted laws conferring "subject" status to such children at birth. As Jacob points out, the ONLY way to qualify as "subject born" (a subject by birth, as distinguished from a subject by act of Parliament) is to be born within the realm, of TWO parents BOTH of whom owe ACTUAL allegiance to the sovereign of that realm:

"There are two incidents regularly that are necessary to make a subject born: first, that his parents, at the time of his birth, be under the actual obedience of the king; Secondly, that the place of his birth be within the king's dominions." (Jacob (1782), p.40, Aliens)

Again, thank you for your information regarding Vattel. Prior to the 14th Amendment, numerous American courts (including the US Supreme Court), citing Vattel, have ruled that a child born on US soil, to a father owing allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, does not acquire US citizenship at birth. The citizenship of such a child, at the time of its birth, is that of its father, not its place of birth. But the Vattel-based argument should go no further than that. I agree, we should not try to apply Vattel to the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution.

I agree that Obama eligibility challengers are making a mistake when they rely too heavily on Vattel. Vattel defined two distinct concepts: "natural citizen" and "native". A natural citizen is one who, at birth, receives his father's citizenship: the place of one' s birth is irrelevant. However, in the SPECIAL CASE in which one is born in the country of one's parents' (plural) citizenship, one is more than just a "natural citizen": one is also a "native" of one's parents' country.

In 1797, the English translation of Vattel's "Law of Nations" was updated to include the English-language phrase "natural born citizen". The fact that the phrase "natural born citizen" was inserted into the English translation of Vattel's work in 1797 is supportive evidence, but is not conclusively evidence, as to the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, which was written ten years earlier.

What is well established are the following:

1) Prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Congress did not enact ANY legislation explicitly defining the status, at birth, of persons born on US soil. Prior to 1866, all of the acts of Congress pertaining to the acquisition of US citizenship was in regards to foreign-born persons only (and their under-age children). When a foreign-born person became a naturalized US citizen, his children (regardless of where those children were born) became US citizens also. But prior to 1866, neither the Constitution nor the US Congress said anything regarding the status, at the time of birth, of children born on US soil.

2) Since both the Constitution and the Congress were silent regarding the status, at birth, of US-born children, the federal courts had no choice but to decide the status of such children according to "common law". In all such cases (prior to 1866), the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, consistently and repeatedly ruled that the common law governing the citizenship at birth of US-born children was "partus sequitur patrem" (the offspring follow the condition of the father). See, for example,
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.C...

3) In English law, there was a distinction between a "subject" of the English king and a "citizen" of an English city or town. All citizens were subjects, but not all subjects were citizens. To be a "natural subject" of the king, one must be born on the king's territory. However, to acquire English citizenship at birth, one must be born of a citizen father. Patrimony was the ONLY way to acquire English citizenship at birth. Thus the "partus sequitur patrem" principle is found not only in Vattel. It was also an integral part of 18th century English common law regarding citizenship.

4) The phrase "natural born subject" had both a general meaning and a specific meaning. In the general sense, all (repeat, ALL) English subjects were deemed to be "natural born" in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether they acquired their "subject" status by birth or by acts of Parliament. But in the more narrow and specific sense, the phrase "natural born" meant birth in a particular place, to parents (plural) who owe actual obedience (allegiance) to the sovereign of that place. See, for example, the definition of "natural born subject" found in Cunningham's Law Dictionary, which by the way was the ONLY law dictionary that James Madison ordered for the Continental Congress.

QUOTE: All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience [allegiance] of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions. END-QUOTE. (Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, 1771, p.95, section titled "Aliens"; also Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law -- Volume 1, 1736).

The notion -- that anyone born on US soil, or anyone who acquires US citizenship at birth, is a natural born citizen -- is based almost entirely on the failure to properly distinguish between the general meaning and the specific meaning of "natural born" in 18th century English law.

I agree that there is a distinction between (a) an actual conflict of interest "in reality", and (b) the mere appearance or perception of conflict of interest. Foreign citizenship represents an actual conflict of interest if such citizenship comes with actual obligations, debts, duties and/or expectations.

It seems to me, merely accepting a title of citizenship does not constitute any real conflict, since there is no obligation or expectation attached to it. I do not see where Jefferson renounced his US citizenship or swore allegiance to France. I don't see where he accepted an obligation to pay taxes to France or to serve in the French military. Perhaps "honorary" is a technically incorrect term, but the title that Jefferson accepted from France sure looks and sounds "honorary" to me.

I also agree, there is a distinction between WHAT the Framers did, and WHY they did it. The Framers understood that the EFFECT of the "natural born citizen" provision was the exclusion of "foreigners" from the Presidency. That was WHAT the the framers wanted to do, and that is WHAT the Framers understood the NBC provision would accomplish. As to WHY they wished to exclude foreigners from the Presidency, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained it this way:

QUOTE: It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; ... the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring
mischiefs arising from this source. END-QUOTE http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents...

The "natural born citizen" provision does not purport to prevent all forms, appearances and possibilities of improper influence. It merely excludes, from the Presidency, persons who were born with "natural allegiance" to a foreign country. According to Blackstone, "natural allegiance" is acquired only at birth and is defined as allegiance to one, and only one, sovereign exclusively. At birth, one CANNOT owe "natural allegiance" to more than one sovereign simultaneously.

If one is born in a foreign country (and, I would also add, if one is born of a foreign-citizen parent), one acquires a "natural tie" to a foreign people. Even if one were to renounce this "natural tie" in later life, it may still lead to all sorts of problems and issues in the Oval Office. When the Constitution was written, not all countries gave the right of expatriation to its natural subjects or citizens.

In 18th century English law, only "natural" subjects were "real" subjects; and only "natural" subjects were permitted to serve in Parliament. "Naturalized" subjects were DEEMED to be English subjects, but were NOT subjects in any absolute or literal sense. During the 1600s, the English courts repeatedly affirmed that naturalization is nothing more than a "fiction of law" which has no effect except in countries consenting to that fiction.

When Jefferson accepted the "title" of French citizenship, he became AT MOST a naturalized French citizen. Since he did not acquire French citizenship at birth, he was not a natural French citizen. He was merely "deemed" a French citizen by a "fiction of law". I don't see where a "fiction of law" necessarily creates an actual or real conflict of interest.

On the other hand, when someone acquires foreign citizenship "naturally" at birth (from one's birthplace, or from either or both of one's parents), there may exist a strong, deep and indelible tie to a foreign people; and such a tie (in some unspecified/unpredictable way) may become an opening for improper influence by foreign interests.

The purpose of the "natural born citizen" provision was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency and thereby protect the presidency from "foreign influence". Regarding sources, here are just two for starters:

1) John Jay's letter to George Washington 25 July 1787:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index....

2) Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution (section 1473):
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents...

James Madison was born prior to the adoption of the US Constitution and was already a US citizen when the Constitution was adopted. Therefore Madison was exempt from the "natural born citizen" provision. (The Constitution states that, to be eligible for the presidency, one must be EITHER a natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Persons who were already US citizens when the Constitution was adoption were eligible to serve as President, even if they were not natural born citizens).

All US presidents (under the US Constitution) who were born after 1787 (the year the US Constitution was adopted), other than Barack Obama and Chester Arthur, were US citizens exclusively at birth and were not, at birth, citizens or subjects of any foreign country.

Keep in mind, "natural born citizenship" pertains ONLY to one's status at the time of one's birth. One's circumstances AFTER one's birth are irrelevant to natural born citizenship, except to the extent that such circumstances might result in loss of US citizenship entirely.

According to multiple historical sources, the REASON the Founding Fathers, at the last minute, changed the presidential eligibility requirement from "citizen" to "natural born citizen" was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency and thereby protect the presidency from "foreign influence". This information alone establishes an important fact: a "citizen" can also be a "foreigner" in some sense, but a natural born citizen is one who is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.

The Supreme Court has confirmed this fact. According to the Court's unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett (1874), natural born citizens are "distinguished from" foreigners. Whatever a natural born citizen is or isn't, such a citizen is, at minimum, someone who is not a "foreigner" in some sense.

Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one's status at the time of one's birth, the ONLY foreigners that the natural born citizen provision can possibly exclude from the presidency are persons who were foreigners at birth. Whatever happens to a person after he is born, or whatever he does or doesn't do in later life, is irrelevant to whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

During the late 18th century, the word "foreigner" referred, not only to foreign-born persons, but also to anyone who was a citizen or subject of any foreign country. So, changing the presidential eligibility from "citizen" to "natural born citizen" could not have achieved its stated purpose -- it could not have excluded any foreigners not already excluded by the original "citizen" provision -- unless the phrase "natural born citizen" is understood to mean a persons who was not a foreigner -- i.e., was neither foreign-born nor a foreign citizen -- at birth.

Most people would agree that a judge should recuse himself from a case involving a dispute between two parties, if he (the judge) had a prior relationship with, or had previously received a gift from, one of the disputing parties. It doesn't matter how good of a judge he is. It doesn't matter whether the relationship has been terminated. It doesn't matter whether he had returned the gift. By virtue of the FACT that a relationship had once existed and that a gift had once been given and received, there is an objective appearance of conflict of interest and at least a theoretical possibility of improper influence .

If you were involved in a legal dispute with a third party, would you be okay with the dispute being decided by a judge who was, at one time, a member of the third party's family?

By the same principle, it is not a good idea for a President to represent the United States in its relations with foreign countries, if he was previously a citizen of one or more of those foreign countries. It doesn't matter whether he had renounced his foreign citizenship(s). It doesn't matter how good a President he might otherwise be. There would still be a constitutionally-impermissible appearance of conflict of interest. There would still be, at least in theory, an increased possibility or risk of foreign influence. For these reasons, the Founding Fathers would not have been okay with such a person serving as President.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/WhyNBC.htm

George Romney was born in Mexico, to US-citizen parents. In 1967, the Democrats were preparing to challenge his "natural born citizen" status, in court, if he had won the GOP primaries. Here is a rough draft (with grammar and spelling errors left intact) of one of the Democrat's legal briefs, explaining why a foreign-born person, even if a US citizen at birth, is not a natural born citizen:
http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McEl...

If the Dems were getting ready to take Romney to court, why would we think the Dems won't take Ted Cruz to court if he became the GOP presidential nominee in 2016? Unlike "birther" challenges to Obama's eligibility, the Dems' challenge to Cruz's eligibility will be well funded, will be undertaken by the best lawyers money can buy, and will receive widespread media coverage and support.

According to literature published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a person must be, at minimum, "native-born" (born in the United States) in order to be eligible to serve as President.

QUOTE: "Another right of all citizens is running for federal office. Many naturalized citizens are elected to federal office. However, to be president or vice president, you must be born in the United States. (Your Government and You, p.1) http://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/USCIS/fil...

QUOTE: "U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country. Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens. (Citizens Almanac, M-76, Rev. 8/13, p.4) http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Of...

It seems to me, this notion -- that anyone who acquired US citizenship at birth is a natural born citizen, regardless of birthplace -- is the invention of someone's wishful thinking. It does not appear to be based on any historical or legal fact.

It appears my reply vanished into cyberspace, so I am posting it again.

Thanks for your encouraging comment.

Unfortunately, not everyone who is harmed or injured by some action by Obama or his appointees has "standing" to pursue a collateral attack against that action. Some requirements include:

1) Your harm or injury must be unique to you or to the specific group to which you belong. No one has standing to challenge an action that harms the public or taxpayers in general.

2) Your harm or injury must be the direct result of an action by Obama or one of his appointees.

3) The courts must be able to remedy or prevent your harm or injury.

Moreover, if you are going to pursue a collateral attack, you MUST do so as soon as the harm or injury happens or is about to happen. If you don't challenge a government official's eligibility up-front at the onset of legal proceedings on the matter, you may not be able to do so later.

All too often, persons who might have standing to pursue a collateral attack -- such as persons charged with breaking a law that Obama had signed -- don't find out about the "collateral attack" option until it is too late.

Attorneys who have expertise in this area can't become "ambulance chasers". They can't seek out clients who might benefit from a collateral attack. It's up to the client to seek them out. The best we can do is spread the word and let people know the option exists.