And let us put an end to what a Natural Born Citizen is.
(italics as in text - bold, underline, colorized by me for those who don't want to read it all.) (The entire speech is actually interesting and I recommend reading it. But for now...here's what you need to know)
Gentlemen are aware of that fact, and the question to-day before this House is, whether the Representatives of the people, under their oaths and in compliance with the clear requirements of the Federal Constitution, here within the limits of the District of Columbia, will faithfully execute their great trust, and declare by law, that hereafter, in all the coming future, no American citizen nor human being shall, within the limits of this District, "be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law." That, sir, is the question, the great question of this day and hour.
I have said that these persons who are the subject-matter of this legislation were natural-born citizens of the Republic. Shall we hesitate, can we hesitate, within the admitted limits of our power, to do justice to our own citizens by the enactment of this law? I regret, although I do not propose to make any change in the text of the bill, that it was carefully worded as to say that, "all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent." I would have preferred if the bill had declared that "all American citizens held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed forever from such servitude."
We are not to be cheated by the tests of citizenship that are sometimes set up touching the elective franchise and eligibility to office. It is too late in the day for any American statesman to undertake to demonstrate that none are citizens of the United States save those entitled to the elective franchise or to the exercise of the functions of office. I stand here to assert the proposition that, by the decision of every State and Federal court in the country, more than one half of the white population of the United States who are excluded from the exercise of the elective franchise, and from all civil offices, are citizens of the United States. I undertake to say, by the decision of your Federal tribunals, that women - that all the women of the Republic born upon the soil - are citizens of the United States, though neither entitled to vote nor to hold civil office. All the native-born women and children of the land, though not entitled to vote nor eligible to civil office, are citizens of the United States within the judiciary act of 1789, and within the Constitution of the United States, and, as such, entitled to sue and be sued in your Federal courts, and to plead and be impleaded therein.
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen fo the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs 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 arenatural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions, become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens, except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians. the reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribes were recognized at the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.
I adopt the words of that man whose clear intellect, through a long and laborious life, contributed much that will endure to the jurisprudence of his country - the lament Chancellor kent, of New York - who declared that every person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws of any State in which he might be held to service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.
The Federal Government neither regulates nor confers under any circumstances the enjoyment of the elective franchise among the States, and therefore the question so flippantly asked, when we propose the liberation of slaves, are you going to give them the right to vote, may as well be omitted here. We have just nothing to do in our legislation with that question; we have no power whatever over it. The right to vote does not involve the right to citizenship. Neither are the rights of men or citizens to protection under the law dependent upon the right of suffrage in them. Are not children natural-born citizens of the United States? Are not they entitled to protection as citizens every where in the States of the Union? Does not the Constitution proved that the citizens of each State, being ipso facto citizens of the United States, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? and does that not apply to the minor citizens of the United States? It is no the privilege to vote that is thus guaranteed to all citizens of the United States.
Speech of Hon. Jno. A. Bingham of Ohio
in reply to Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky,
in The House of Representatives,
April 11, 1862
On the bill to emancipate slaves, and to prohibit slavery and perpetuate liverty forever in the national capital
(from page 3/4 - https://archive.org/stream/speechofhonjnoab00bing#page/n1/mode/2up)
__________________________________________________
You want more?? Here's the intent behind the specific wording:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen"
Letter from John Jay to George Washington
New York,
July 25, 1787
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:68356
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of your national govt. and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the am. army shall not be given nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
DRAFT of letter from John Jay to George Washington
New York
July 25, 1787
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:79158
Now you know the INTENT of the wording of "natural born".
(OH. And John Jay was the 1st Supreme Court Justice of the United States.)
___________
Still wanting to argue? Have some more....
What you need to know: "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" by Emmerich de Vattel was one of the primary reference books used by the founders during the writing of the Constitution. Multiple references to the book are made during that summer as can be seen in The Madison Papers by James Madison.
§ 14. Whether peace can be made with an usurper.
When an unjust conqueror, or any other usurper, has invaded the kingdom, he becomes possessed of all the powers of government when once the people have submitted to him, and, by a voluntary homage, acknowledged him as their sovereign. Other states, as having no right to intermeddle with the domestic concerns of that nation, or to interfere in her government, are bound to abide by her decision, and to look no farther than the circumstances of actual possession. They may, therefore, broach and conclude a treaty of peace with the usurper. They do not thereby infringe the right of the lawful sovereign: it is not their business to examine and judge of that right: they leave it as it is, and only look to the possession in all the affairs they have to transact with that kingdom, pursuant to their own rights and those of the nation whose sovereignty is contested. But this rule does not preclude them from espousing the quarrel of the dethroned monarch, and assisting him, if he appears to have justice on his side: they then declare themselves enemies of the nation which has acknowledged his rival, as, when two different states are at war, they are at liberty to assist either party whose pretensions appear to be best founded.
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
Emmerich de Vattel
BOOK 4, CHAPTER 2
Treaties of Peace
http://archive.is/iQZO#selection-421.0-425.1234
______________________________
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
EMMERICH DE VATTEL
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 211. What is our country.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. [u][b][color=red]The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.[/color][/b][/u] As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. [u]The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children[/u]; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§ 214. Naturalization.1
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.2 By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
[/quote]
____________________________
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.3 — 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favor,4 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.
2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honorable and conformable to every duty — in a word, between the internal, and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonorable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretenses, after having derived considerable advantages from them; and this is the case of every citizen, with respect to his country.
3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves, instead of defending it, they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in a united body, and in concert; they are infamous deserters, whom the state has a right to punish severely.5
http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
__________________________
And you still think it's not a big deal?
Princes and Princesses who would be eligible to run for POTUS if we don't follow the definition lined out above. Since it's the current belief that just having one American citizen parent is all it takes to qualify for the office.
Prince Albert II of Monaco, Pakistan Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, Jordan Prince Hamzah bin Hussein - All have American mothers. Grace Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Queen Noor respectively.
Russian Prince Nikolai Rostisalvich Romanov - who went one better and not only had an American mother...but also was born in Chicago.
According to many people all of these royal children can be POTUS.
Does anyone not see a problem with these kiddos being President of the United States? (for this study - we'll presume they've done the 14 yr residency requirement)
Here's an interesting conundrum..
Archduke Stefan
Prince of Tuscany, Archduke and Imperial Prince of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia
Full name German: Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen
House: House of Habsburg-Lorraine
Father: Archduke Anton of Austria
Mother: Princess Ileana of Romania
The Archduke became a naturalized American. He married an American. He lived in America.
They had 4 children. All born & raised in America. All of the children by the strictest definition - natural born citizens.
So here's the question....
Would anyone actually be comfortable electing any of the Archduke's children as POTUS? and if not, how many generations away from royalty before they should be?
Anna Christina Radziwill (Polish pronunciation: RRah – gee – veaw) (born August 18, 1960) is an American producer. She is the daughter of socialite/actress Caroline Lee Bouvier and the late Polish Prince Stanislaw Albrecht Radziwill.
Her baptism at Westminster Cathedral in London, was in June 1961, and was attended by, among many others, her famous aunt First Lady Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Bouvier.
Radziwill is also the sister of the late filmmaker Anthony Stanislas Radziwill. She was married to Ottavio Arancio, a professor of medicine at Columbia University, from 1999 to 2005.
She resides in New York and like her mother and aunt has a great appreciation of the fine arts. She is the former stepdaughter of the late film director Herbert Ross, who was married to her mother from 1988 to 2001. She served as a post-production assistant for his 1991 film True Colors.
A distant relative of the current British royal family, she is descended from Sophia of Hanover. However, she is not in the line of succession to the British throne because she is a Roman Catholic.
How could we NOT want this little princess as POTUS? Polish, British and she's even like American Royalty!! She's a shoe in for POTUS!!!
Here's some Hope we can believe in!
Princess Hope Leezum Namgyal, he daughter of the late Palden Thondup Namgyal, the last King of Sikkim, a former Himalayan protectorate of India that has become an Indian state. He died in 1982. Her mother was Hope Cooke, Queen of Sikkim.
Or her brother? Prince Palden Gyurmed Namgyal.
We could go for the first brother/sister ticket!
Princess Charlotte or Prince Robert of Luxembourg?
Their mother, Joan Dillon, was the daughter of U.S. Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon.
Don't think they'd have any problem going after the Fed.
(checking how many people know about Luxembourg)
Finally! We have a father's lineage to follow!!
Prince Ploypailin Jensen, son of Peter Ladd Jensen and Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya of Thailand. AND the prince was born in the USA.
Interesting family. The Princess graduated from MIT. And one of their sons was killed in the tsunami. :(
Ahhh....I've come to end of the list of royals.
But we've got 8 moms out there who's offspring aren't old enough yet or who haven't been born yet.
Sweden, Cambodia, Luxembourg, Austria, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Greece, Jordan and even a Furstenberg.
So don't give up! If we fail in 2016 - we have lots more chances to have ruling royal family for decades to come yet!!
#RoyalFamilies4POTUS4ever!!
