by Joseph DeMaio, ©2022
(Dec. 15, 2022) — What if your humble servant were to reveal something here at The P&E which could, once and for all, put an end to “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) debate raging in the comments sections of numerous posts here? What if recently-discovered “hard” evidence – in the form of a letter from John Jay to David Brearley, Chairman of the “Committee on Postponed Matters” at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 – was produced? And what if that letter confirmed the intent of the Founders to rely on § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations for its definition of an nbC, requiring birth in the nation to parents who were already U.S. Citizens? Would that change any of the minds of those who believe that the only criterion for an nbC is to be born here as a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth?”
Curious? Read on.
What if that letter, dated August 29, 1787, creased and aged by time, looked like this:
That image, converted to a more readable font, states:
My Dear Chief Justice Brearley:
I yesterday evening dined with General Washington at the home of Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. Present as well was that great intellect, James Madison, as well as our host, the quick-witted Ben Franklin… a good time was enjoyed by all, and the venison, if you will allow me, was magnifique and the plumb compôte all the more so.
Yet on a more serious note, this communication comes to you at the direct and urgent suggestion of Gen. Washington, and echoed by both Messrs. Madison and Franklin. It is directed to you in your honourable capacity as chair of the convention’s Committee on Postponed Matters. I shall be brief: in my letter to Gen. Washington of last July 25, I strongly hinted that none but a “natural born Citizen” be considered as eligible to the presidency and the command of the Nation’s armed forces.
This prophylactic concept, well known to members of the convention as well as to the committee, springs from the teachings of Vattel, Bk. 1, Ch. 19. General Washington assured me that he had forwarded that letter to you with the request that it be put before the committee for discussion and, without objection, placed into the final document.
That suggestion has happily made its way into the draft of the most recent addition to the constitution proposed by your committee, a copy of which JM had brought with him to the dinner. However, he brought to our attention the obvious fact, which he had realized earlier that morning, that as Vattel instructs, a natural born citizen is one born on the soil of the nation to parents who are themselves citizens, and in particular, born of a father who is a citizen. Vattel, Bk. 1, Ch. 19, § 212. JM pointed out, correctly, that none present at the dinner would satisfy that requirement. BF chortled and quipped that as far as he knew, no one else would then qualify either, so the nation would exist without a president, a condition to be avoided at all costs.
Thus, JM suggested, and all at the dinner concurred, that a time-limited exception or “citizen grandfather” clause should be included in the proviso to address and resolve that problem. Therefore, I humbly offer to you the suggestion that, after the words “natural born citizen” in the present draft, the following exception be added: “, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” &tc.
That minor amendment will preserve Vattel’s restrictive concept going forward until such time as a true American “natural born Citizen” meeting the requisite criteria emerges. Due to the time element and the drawing to a close of the convention’s proceedings, GW has authorized me to contact you swiftly and directly.
I remain, dear Sir, your faithful and obedient servant,
/S/ John Jay
If confronted with hard, documentary evidence such as this, if true, can there remain any opposing credible claim that the nbC provision of the Constitution, coupled with the addition of the “grandfather citizen” clause, compels the conclusion that the Founders intended to define an nbC as a person born here to two parents who were already citizens? As the Supreme Court has already done in Minor v. Happersett?
Or would those who refuse to even consider the relevance of Vattel on the Founders and the nbC clause deem such evidence worthy of being disregarded and ignored as being at such radical variance with the accepted “narrative” that if one is a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth,” regardless of parental citizenship – or, in certain cases, even birth in the United States – that is enough?
Worse, even if the “de Vattel-Deniers” admitted the authenticity of the letter imaged above, would they be so invested in preserving the mirage of legitimacy and patina of a very mixed legacy – a ruse that was perpetrated on the American electorate not once, but twice, in 2008 and 2012 – that they would do everything in their power to make sure the image never saw the light of day… or the interior of the U.S. Capitol? If we are already there, then we are, indeed, in deep and abiding trouble.
And, by the way – for the slower-than-normal – the “what-ifs?” prefacing the discussions of the image of the letter should have been a give-away: the image is the product of your humble servant’s stitching together of a few pieces of historical facts and a bit of not-so-far-fetched hypothetical discussions which might – but then again might not – have taken place back in Philadelphia… on that muggy Wednesday evening of August 29, 1787.
And to those who say it could never have happened that way… are you sure? Really sure?
CDR Kerchner (Ret) says:
Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:00 PM
Dennis Becker: …Provide a link to that assertion by you that David Ramsey’s dissertation of 1789 was specifically addressed and legally rejected by a vote or action of the U.S. Congress
=================================================
On March 31st, 1789 Dr. Ramsay sent a letter to Elias Boudinot describing his petition in Congress to overturn the 1788 South Carolina election.
In his letter he said, “The enclosed dissertation I sent some time ago to Mr. Hazard to be printed and offered for sale & a copy to be sent by the printer as from himself to every member of Congress. Mr. Hazard has not answered my letters. I therefore for fear of accidents transmit to you a duplicate requesting it now be printed & distributed if not done already.”
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Transactions_American_Philosophical_Soci/GD1tHinPBhUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=david+ramsay+to+elias+boudinot+march+31st,+1789+%22presuming+on+our+ancient+friendship%22&pg=PA124&printsec=frontcover
He sent a similar letter to James Madison.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0036
Dr. Ramsay’s dissertation had five methods of acquiring citizenship:
1 By being parties to the original compact, the Declaration of Independence.
2 By taking an oath of fidelity to some one of the United States, agreeably by law.
3 By tacit consent and acquiescence.
4 By birth or inheritance.
5 By adoption.
His petition to Congress listed the same five methods but in a different order.
1 By birth or inheritance.
2 By having been a party to the late revolution.
3 By taking an oath of fidelity to some of the states.
4 By tacit consent.
5 By adoption.
From his petition:
“He [Smith] cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance, for he was born in 1758, in South Carolina, while a British colony; and his parents were dead many years before the declaration of independence; his birthright and inheritance can, therefore, be no other than that of a British subject; for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed.”
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cases_of_Contested_Elections_in_Congress/bQ8EfoaTBLsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22contested+elections+%22in+congress+st.+claire&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
Congress rejected this argument and voted that Smith because he was a native of South Carolina, became a citizen on July 4th, 1776 even though he was living outside of the US.
And in spite of the fact he didn’t have citizen parents.
As an old time compositor, a hot metal type setter who started off using handset type in a “stick”, this letter looks to me to be printed, using a formal script. I say, looks to me, as I cannot enlarge it to check and some letter writers in days gone by were excellent calligraphers.
The “letter” is of course a fake: the phraseology alone shows that repeatedly.
Some useful writings and graphics for any newbies to this forum on the subject of the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen”:
Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/
The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
Another excellent piece of writing by Mr. Joseph DeMaio designed to make one critically think about a key, but falsified, political narrative of the progressive agenda to undermine and abrogate parts of the U.S. Constitution, that has been foisted on the American public by the progressive far left over the last 20-30 years. And, as a result of that, with the defacto putting of a constitutionally ineligible anti-American “Dreams From My Father” Barack Hussein Obama II into the Oval Office, has put the USA onto an ever accelerating path of destruction of our Constitutional Republic. And said Obama is still doing his evil works behind the scene pulling the strings as a master “Saul Alinsky style” community organizer serving a defacto 3rd term in the Oval Office via his front man, Joe Biden.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
after all we have been through, what defines a final and authoritative resolution of this issue? Courts won’t touch it. Legislatures won’t touch it.
Other than through the amendment process, legislatures can’t define what words in the U.S. Constitution.
But courts can give rulings.
Wrong ones, often enough.
Yes indeed they made efforts to and have wrongly tried and failed to redefine “natural born Citizen”. Members of Congress in the establishment part of both political parties in Congressional committees have tried and failed to do so several times over the last 20 years or so, before the 2008 election cycle. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Attempts%20to%20Redefine%20or%20Amend%20Article%20II
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Is this imagined dinner meeting and letter an admission by Mr. DeMaio that there is zero evidence the Framers used Vattel’s Law of Nations as a guide?
Why was Jay on Philadelphia? Why if Franklin, Washington and Madison were there, did Jay have to write a letter to Brearley? It was Madison’s idea to add a grandfather clause. Couldn’t the three delegates to the Convention simply go over there and tell him?
And then there is the problem of the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision. Both would trump this newly discovered letter.
The letter is not real.
I know. I called it the “imagined dinner meeting and letter”.
The letter is not real.
But then there is the problem of the 14th Amendment not including “natural born” along with “born or naturalized” regarding which persons constitute a “citizen” thereby distinguishing the former from the latter, and the Wong Kim Ark decision interpreting the 14th Amendment as including “natural born” when in fact it does not.
“Words matter!” — Barry Soetoro…ooooops, my bad…Soebarkah…oooooops, my bad again…Barack Hussein Obama.
The 14th Amendment does not even contain the term “natural born Citizen”, nor does it address or modify Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause, of the United States Constitution.
And likewise, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark U.S. Supreme Court decision in its HOLDING (no matter what was said in dicta for that case or any other case) does not address who is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen”, but said holding only modified who was a “Citizen” when born in the USA to legally present and domiciled alien parents. So referencing those two man-made positive laws does not in anyway address or modify the Natural Law provision of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, presidential eligibility clause, requiring that only a “natural born Citizen” is constitutionally eligible to serve as President once the founding generation is gone: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/article2SuperPACeligibilityfacts-issuespage.pdf
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Tom said: “Is this imagined dinner meeting and letter an admission by Mr. DeMaio that there is zero evidence the Framers used Vattel’s Law of Nations as a guide?”
Tom, a question for you. Are you related to or connected to that Rudy Lee fellow, who told untruths on various subjects and who habitually said here, “there is no evidence”, or implied here in a similar vein via questions like yours just now, implying “there is zero evidence”? Your writing and argument style reads like him, in my opinion.
There is lots of “circumstantial evidence” to suggest and support Vattel as the source of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution. And circumstantial evidence is evidence as anyone who has been on trial in a court of law well knows and also in the court of public opinion.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
Evidence for birth in the US as sufficient for the term natural born citizen is more direct.
1) English Common Law definition of natives/natural born subjects.
2) Pre-Revolutionary argument that American-born colonists were natural born subjects.
3) Post-Revolution states incorporated English Common Law into their constitutions.
4) shortly after Revolution, states and Founders began using the terms natives/natural born citizens.
5) Massachusetts legislature uses both terms natural born citizens and natural born subjects interchangeably.
6) Post-Constitutional Convention, members of Congress specifically say children born in the US to alien parents are natural born citizens/subjects.
7) William Rawle writes a legal treatise where he specifically says children born in the US to alien parents are natural born citizens
From Natural Law used by the founders and framers in 1776 to break from England and to write the new federal U.S. Constitution in 1787, which by its very nature would not be allowed by English common law, in order to form a more perfect union. Our U.S. Constitution and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court formed our own new federal common law. At the federal level, English common law held no weight or merit in our new system of government, a constitutional republic, at the federal level. Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law discusses in Volume 1 that the primary task of government is the perfection of itself to serve and justly serve the citizens. Hardly a coincidence that the words to form a more “perfect” union are in the preamble of our U.S. Constitution. Another example of the writings of Vattel and its influence on the framers.
1. Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law heavily used by the founders and framers such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212:
§ 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. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 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.
Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
2. Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Dumas for additional copies of Vattel’s treatise: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks-charles-dumas-of-the-netherlands-for-sending-him-3-more-copies-of-the-newest-edition-of-vattels-law-of-nations/
3. George Washington cited borrowing from the New York library and using a copy of Vattel’s treatise in 1789: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html
4. Many more examples of papers and evidence found in several papers about the importance and characteristic of a “natural born Citizen” of the United States being one who is born with out any foreign influence aka foreign influence dual citizenship inherited from a parent here: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
William Rawle was born in 1759 and died in 1836. He was not a founder of the nation via any participation in the Continental Congress in 1776. Nor was he a framer of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. And certainly none of his writings in 1829 or otherwise were ever used by any of them in writing the U.S. Constitution since his 1829 writings were neither before or during the founding and framing time frames.
Instead the much discussed the writings of the enlightenment were used by the founders and framers to justify the break from England and to write our founding documents.
And in particular of Vattel treatise on enlightenment natural law was used. It was cited as being used by them by several of the founders and framers, such as Franklin and Washington specifically. And per Franklin the use of Vattel was in heavy demand during the founding era as his copy was in great demand by other founders. See Franklin’s letter to Dumas: https://www.scribd.com/document/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law
On another point, out of curiosity I searched to see if William Rawle actually served in any military capacity during the Revolutionary War on either side to see where his ideology lay as the founding of our nation. From what I can find, he did not serve in any military capacity that I could find. William Rawle is not listed in the SAR’s listing of Patriot Ancestors.
From my look-see, his step-father was the loyalist mayor of Philadelphia during the revolution and the family eventually fled to New York after the British had to evacuate Philadelphia. William Rawle studied law in England for a time. After the revolutionaries won the war, it appears he of course as a lawyer he saddled up with the winners and moved up the legal and the local connections ladder in post-revolutionary war Philadelphia PA. Thus I think William Rawle, who at heart during the revolutionary era was an English loyalist, is hardly a person who would tout Vattel’s Natural Law and Law of Nations influence on the founders and framers to enable founding the new country and write its founding documents and would instead be much more akin to tout English common law instead. Favor moved towards all that was English especially in 1829 as America moved back to a more friendly relationship with England. And as we know English common law for the most part simply considered the place of one’s birth to be definitive in the claim of the sovereign over the inhabitants. After all, English common law dealt with SUBJECTS, not citizens.
And most certainly, English common law was not used to define who was eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our new nation after the founding generation was gone. It had to be someone born free of foreign influence as per the letter in the summer of 1787 from Jay to Washington, and to which Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention concurred. And only Vattel’s definition of “natural born Citizen” fits that requirement. Read all of Vattel’s Vol. 1 Chapter 19 Section 212 and one will clearly see that: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
And just what evidence has there been/is there in the public domain of Barry Soetoro’s…oooops, my bad…Soebarkah’s…oooops, my bad…Barack Hussein Obama Jr’s birth in the U.S.?
If you are not familiar with this, I think you would like to see it.
https://ia600201.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/22/items/digestofselectbr00robe/digestofselectbr00robe_jp2.zip&file=digestofselectbr00robe_jp2/digestofselectbr00robe_0050.jp2&id=digestofselectbr00robe&scale=4&rotate=0
Thank you, Joseph DeMaio. You found the Holy Grail of the natural born Citizen debate.
Now, it is time for all Constitutional-abiding U.S. citizens to once-again forward this information to all members of the U.S. Supreme Court, to their U.S. Representative, to both of their U.S. Senators, and to all those still-living individuals who knowingly or unknowingly ran as unqualified candidates in past presidential elections.
I believe my representative knows what a natural born citizen is, but after being told Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen…or else….he repeats the party line…both parties…..He knows good jobs with great benefits are hard to find………It’s obvious why Obama was picked for the “fundamental change” of the greatest nation on Earth which Obama promised, because he is both race and ineligibility protected and he is still delivering. Apparently to some people that change is a wonderful thing, and it matters not how it is achieved……….
It wasn’t “found.” It’s a work of fiction.
Obama’s short form and long form birth certificates weren’t “found” either. Both are proven, computer produced, works of fiction.
To Ramid Davsay – who is likely someone who has been here before under another ID and who thinks of themselves as being very clever social engineer and likely uses a VPN to hide his true IP address and thus that he’s been here before using another user ID: Your user name is a work of fiction and is an indirect plagiarization of the name of an important founder. See the 1789 writings of David Ramsay in this list: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards The title of Mr. DeMaio’s article is “What If … ” and it points our the hidden agenda of the anti-Vallel deniers who frequent this forum.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org
https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
Just like the 14th Amendment, Dr. Ramsay did not use the term natural born citizen.
His position on how citizenship was acquired was rejected by Congress.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789
Dennis Becker: Nice link to my posting of David Ramsey’s dissertation, but where therein does it say it was rejected by Congress. Provide a link to that assertion by you that David Ramsey’s dissertation of 1789 was specifically addressed and legally rejected by a vote or action of the U.S. Congress.