In response to the article “Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained Once And For All!
Written by Alan R. Treski, Esquire (FB Alan Treski)
I wrote the same conclusion last year and forwarded my legal conclusions with cites to Trump…obama likewise is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” he is only a “Citizen” through his mother……….OUR FOUNDING FATHERS APPLIED VATTEL’S CONCEPT OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IN OUR CONSTITUTION:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
Our Framers had no need to define “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations. It is well known, that Our Founding Fathers used the “Law of Nations” as their reference during discussions and ratification of the Constitution. During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here<<<Philadelphia where the Continental Congress was meeting>>>, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
Our Founding Fathers didn’t spell out what they meant by “Natural Born Citizen” in Our Constitution, because they All understood and knew what the meaning was as defined in Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”…..just like each of us don’t have to define and describe what an “airplane or a pizza” is for us to know what someone is talking about when it is mentioned, “Natural Born Citizen” was known and understood when it was mentioned. Our Founding Fathers were in complete agreement with the ideas of Vattel. Vattel’s reference contained “all the maxims of political and individual liberty that Our Founding Fathers ”advocated!!! From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence over the policies of Our young Nation. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic and became an essential text book in the universities of America.
Prior to the Revolutionary War, the people living in North America were “subjects” of the British Crown. After we won Our War for Independence, we became “citizens” of a New Nation. Vattel provided definitions for our new republican concepts of “citizenship”. Vattel states in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, the following:
“§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” <<<NOTE>>> The Plural Form of “Parent(s)” and “Citizen(s)” are used by Vattel!!! Vattel’s Model and that of Our Constitutional Republic as understood by Our Founding Fathers, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born from “Citizen(s)” <<<PLURAL>>> & “Parent(s)” <<<PLURAL>>>!!!
The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress (which was using Vattel’s reference, The Law of Nations) sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:
“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a Natural Born Citizen…”
CONCLUSION:
A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens and can only be “citizens.” Now, their children (grandchildren) can be “Natural Born Citizens” IF they marry another “Citizen or Natural Born Citizen”!!!
Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. <<<<On another issue then, “anchor babies” were NOT Intended either by Our Founding Fathers!!!>>>> Lastly, The Naturalization Act of 1790
Provided that “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” The “WHERE Question” of Where the child was born wasn’t a Factor to be considered to determine “Natural Born Status” as long as the Children of CITIZEN(S) <<Plural Noun>> at the time of the baby’s birth.
BY: Alan R. Treski, Esquire (FB Alan Treski)
THE MARSHALL REPORT 
I had some crazy Cruzbot yell and call me names for citing Vattel. Truly deranged. Told me I was spreading misinformation. Had to block him.
LikeLike
They are all very strange and in denial of any real truth. Very different. Scary.
LikeLike
Subsequent to the 14th Amendment, we apparently find the understanding of “natural born Citizen” being questioned. In particular, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states “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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html ) Indeed, subsequent to the 14th Amendment, it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor went out of its way to question what was apparently previously believed to be Natural Law. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor seems to be acknowledging the possibility that Natural Law dictates (i.e. it’s self-evident) citizenship for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor was concerned about the possibility for discrimination against those who were not at their time of birth born to U.S. citizens under some abusive pretext. Thus, in Minor the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be raising the question – what gives anyone, including Vattel, a monopoly on the representation of Natural Law? Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), Vattel is apparently only cited by the dissent. Apparently, we have a problem with judges who CREATE LAW – especially now!!! “In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution (or loose constructionism) is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.[1]” (— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution ). Unfortunately, with the passing (homicide (?)) of Justice Scalia, I doubt that there would be a majority opinion interpreting natural born Citizen in accordance with the original meaning (Vattel). BY THE WAY, A DECISION THAT WOULD DECIDE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH VATTEL WOULD SEEM TO INVALIDATE THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY AND ALL HIS LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS – TALK ABOUT A POTENTIAL MOTIVATION IN THE SCALIA DEATH. GIVEN THE CURRENT POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT BY ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AGAINST ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THE POWERS THAT BE MAY BE CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY FOR SUCH A LAWSUIT TO SOON REACH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
LikeLike
I would love to hear you speak to 0bama’s dubious ‘citizenship’!
NOT ONLY was 0bama’s father (Barack Obama Sr.) a citizen of the British protectorate now known as Kenya;
when Lolo Soetoro adopted him and took him to Indonesia to raise, he gained Indonesian citizenship while simultaneously losing American citizenship!
So NOT ONLY is he NOT a ‘natural-born’ American citizen, he’s STILL an Indonesian citizen that overstayed his student visa, and should have been deported LONG AGO…
= = =
Can anyone PROVE ME WRONG???
Any guesses why he sealed ALL of his personal records???
LikeLike
Republicans trying to put another foreigner in office. That is all we need.
LikeLike
Thank you for every other magnificent article. Where else could anybody get that type of info in such an ideal means of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I’m at the search for such info.
LikeLike
As a French jurist with more than a passing familiarity with Vattel’s works, I came across this rather later, but I can tell you that you completely misunderstand the use of the plural in “parents” which grammatically (in French as in English) means either parent not both, the plural being being dictated by the subject of the sentence. Let me give you an easy example: “Only children whose parents are members of the club may use the swimming pool” Same thing: a child is required to have ONE parent who is a club member, not both. This is not a legal interpretation, this is correct grammar.
LikeLike
That may be true in France or for matters of trivial import, however, when creating Our Constitution, wording was written to be precise. 32 of the 55 Framers of Our Constitution were lawyers, and when lawyers use certain words, they are intended to have precise meaning. If the Framers meant “one” parent, they would have used the word “Parent” or stated “One Parent,” NOT “Parents” ((plural)). The word “Parents” is plural and it was intended to be plural in its effect. It should be noted that women in the 18’th century were considered to be property of the husband, because there wasn’t any woman’s suffrage. Women therefore naturally became a citizen of whatever country the husband was a citizen. French grammatical context aside, Our Founders once again used the plural form of Parent when they passed and defined “Natural Born Citizen” in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Obama represented a political Coup d’ etat, orchestrated by Globalist elites with the aid of the Deep State Shadow Government and a corrupt National media, that failed the American People by never vetting obama!!!
LikeLike
Yes,Vattel also mentions one parent: father.
LikeLike
Thank You Alan Tresky your article and your comments are 100% in line with my teaching also.
I am curious to see the video you linked that YOUTUBE committed CENSORSHIP of, breaking two laws USC Part 1 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242, not to mention it being an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT, as their ENTIRE PLATFORM is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO FREELY SET AN ACCOUNT AND POST VIDEOS…. IF IT WAS PAID ACCOUNTS ONLY and PRIVATE ONLY VIEWABLE BY PERSON WITH PAID ACCOUNTS then they could INCORPORATE CONTRACT CLAUSES THAT INHIBIT RIGHTS, BUT as a FREELY OPEN TO PUBLIC FORM they DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT…
So if you could post the videos TITLES and post copies on BITCHUTE and RUMBLE or GAB all with the same TITLE so people would be able to find them…
And again EXCELLENT ARTICLE, I am a BIG fan of VATTEL’S LAW OF NATIONS
And I use DICTIONARIES that were in USE during the times writings were originally published,
BACON and WEBSTER have changed definitions, in a sly and evil way, to destroy the BIBLE, they introduce additional meanings #2 #3 #4 etc. Then a few year later move the original meaning down, and after a few years as the lowest meaning, they remove it all together.
LikeLike