Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789

“CITIZENSHIP…BELONGS TO NONE BUT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN OF CITIZENS”

by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Historian David Ramsay (1749-1815)

(Apr. 2, 2010) — In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen,” (1789) a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786.  He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes); in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes); in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” (Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2, May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” 

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time, would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen,” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emmerich de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. . . . ” John A. Bingham (R-Ohio), U.S. Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status, which under our Constitution only the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens of the United States” but not all “Citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens.” It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander-in-Chief to have.

Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may  have been), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor became a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for the purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend, nor did he ever become, a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for upon Obama’s birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military. Just as a naturalized citizen, who, despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.


Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news.  She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.

11 Responses to "Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines “natural born Citizen” in 1789"

  1. OneMoreCarol   Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 3:37 PM

    This article needs to be read by EVERY Legislator in EVERY State and in the Federal Legislature so that States will STOP giving Citizenship to babies born in the USofA to Illegal Aliens. I have contended for over 25 years [when I worked for the Welfare System], that the States were misinterpreting the Constitution of the USofA when they allowed for the creation of “anchor babies.” David Ramsey explanation is clear and Constitutional. Every State in the USofA needs to stop the insidious practice of ignoring the meaning and intent of the US Constitution in order to grant citizenship to babies of Illegal Aliens who are obviously NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because they have broken the law by entering the USofA without regard to lawful means.

    Thank you Mr Apuzzo!

  2. Cinncinatus Dogood   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 8:45 PM

    Lets impeach him and use the NBC clause in the requirements to do it. Vote to remove him, ask your candidate if he has the balls to impeach Obama.

  3. Cinncinatus Dogood   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 8:40 PM

    Sorry, not in the presidential requirements.The presidential elegibility requirements are more specific.

  4. Durus   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    Mario supplemented the opening brief of KERCHNER v OBAMA (APPEAL) – Letter Dated 4-2-10

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29320498/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-Letter-Dated-4-2-10-Transport-Room

  5. marck   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM

    James Madison on Citizenship during Congressional debates:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.” Madison then said: “I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.”

    hmmm.

  6. marck   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM

    um, this was written to malign his opposition in a political race as he claimed that his opponent was not elligible….the courts and public opinion were not on his side and he lost the election….thats a fact…ooops

  7. HighlanderJuan   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM

    Excellent article Mario. Thanks for doing it.

    Inasmuch as the evidence of usurpation By Obama is increasing in volume, I am concerned that we have already been taken over by the Marxists in a quiet coup d’état, and that our rule of law is no longer in force. Yours is a case that will help define for us all if we are still a country ruled by law, or if we are a country ruled by the state.

    We all wish you much success in Kerschner v. Obama – for all of us and for our besieged republic.

  8. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 11:02 AM

    I know he is inelligible! You know he is inelligible! The majority of the whole world knows he is inelligible, yet there hesits laughing at us! What is the answer to removing him? Who will step up to the plate and remove him from usurping the office of POTUS?!? Up to this point, all we have are complainers and whiners frustrated by not knowing how to take the proper action to rectify this injustice. He will sit in the Oval Office as long as we allow him to. I don’t have the answer, but I’m sure it is out there; and I hope it comes to the surface soon! God bless America, because it appears Jeremiah Wright has his request of “Goddamn America” answered in Barack Hussein Obama?!!??!

  9. Bob1943   Friday, April 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM

    Great article Mr. Apuzzo. If you and Mr. Kerchner are successful in squeezing the truth out of Soetoro/Obama, I’ll take back ALL of the bad stuff I have said about lawyers over the years………………………..OK, most lawyers.

    Never give up……….

  10. Hammer Down   Friday, April 2, 2010 at 10:35 PM

    The DNC needs to be held accountable for permitting a “dual citizen” to run for POTUS. It’s not just politics it’s a question of “national security”.

  11. TexomaEd   Friday, April 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM

    Wow. What a great find this is, from an anonymous source. I bet there are other writings yet to be discovered, which will further corroborate the definition of natural born citizen as being born in the country to citizen parents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.