A Five-Paragraph Treatise on nbC

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023

(Dec. 13, 2023) — In the spirit of Christmas, and with hopes for a very Happy New Year for all P&E readers, your humble servant has determined to create and provide a gift.  It is hoped that the gift may assist in explaining, in something of a “Cliff’s Notes^®” abbreviated way, why it is far more likely than not that the general narrative now circulating as to who is or is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution – purportedly, a “citizen at/by birth,” regardless of parental citizenship or place of birth – is wrong.

Specifically, in a “micro-treatise” offering a scant five (5) sentence-paragraphs long, your servant hopes to briefly summarize why the Founders intended to use the definition found in § 212, Book I, Ch. 19 of Emer de Vattel’s tome, “The Law of Nations,” (1758) as the one to be adopted in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the presidential “Eligibility Clause.”  That definition, of course, is a person born here to two U.S. citizen parents.  

So, without further ado, your servant presents – suitable for printing and carrying around to confront any “deVattel Deniers” P&E readers may encounter – the micro-treatise:

A Five-Paragraph Treatise on nbC

• As confirmed by Publius – Alexander Hamilton – in Federalist 68, the Founders sought to erect the highest available barrier to the potential for the insinuation of foreign influence into the “chief magistracy” – the presidency – of the new Republic, selecting the term “natural born Citizen” as a strong restriction on eligibility as “hinted” by John Jay in his July 25, 1787 letter to Constitutional Convention Chair George Washington;

• The highest available barrier in 1787 to the potential for the insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency was that found in § 212 of Book I, Ch. 19, “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Swiss lawyer, jurist and scholar Emer de Vattel, defining a “natural born citizen” as a person born on the soil of a country to parents both of whom were already citizens of that country;

• The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), that the Founders understood, under the nomenclature of the time and without any doubt, that a person born here to parents both of whom were already U.S. citizens was a “natural born Citizen,” but also adding that there were “doubts” as to whether the same nbC status could properly be accorded to persons born here regardless of their parents’ citizenship;

• A definition of an nbC which accords nbC status to persons born anywhere, even beyond U.S. soil, if one or the other parent – but not necessarily both, either of which might be a dual citizen – is a U.S. citizen, producing a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth,” presents a much lower barrier to the potential for insinuation of foreign influence into the presidency than does a higher barrier incorporating the de Vattel § 212 nbC definition, which ensures exclusive and undivided allegiance to the United States alone;

• It defies logic – and in factual reality is both illogical and counterintuitive – to accept that the Founders would have consciously adopted a lower “foreign influence insinuation” barrier when a known, higher barrier existed and in particular one which, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, was in the Founders’ view free of any “doubt” as to its import or meaning.

Readers are encouraged to report back to the intrepid P&E Editor if any de Vattel Deniers who may be confronted have any rational response to the micro-treatise.  Responses such as “Oh, for cryin’ out loud, give it a rest…” or “Move along, there’s nothing to see here…” do not count as “rational” responses.  Those are excuses for an inability or unwillingness to produce good answers…, not a lot unlike the posture of the current Supreme Court.