by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret), blogging at cdrkerchner, ©2025
.jpg){kind=link}
(Sep. 27, 2025) — Vattel’s legal treatise was mentioned in communications between John Jay and others during the revolution and founding and framing time period. Vattel’s legal treatise was a very important guiding light and legal reference to the Founders and Framers in the justifying the revolution, the founding of our nation, the writing and framing of our founding documents, and in the establishment of our new U.S. Federal Government’s “Common Law” via subsequent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, especially regarding U.S. citizenship.
John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have often wondered if the book that he has his left hand resting on in this well-known painting of him as the Chief Justice is Vattel’s legal treatise, “The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law“. From history we know that he rested many of his decisions regarding our new nation on the Principles of Natural Law, and specifically Vattel’s preeminent legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law. It would be a worthy book befitting him to pose with, given his strong belief and support of the Laws of Nature and Natural Law, which were espoused and attested to as the legal basis for the revolution in the preamble of our nation’s Declaration of Independence. His July 1787 letter to George Washington , then the President of the Constitutional Convention in meeting in Philadelphia PA, recommending adding the Natural Law term ” natural born Citizen” to the Article II Presidential Eligibility Clause in the new Constitution to provide a “strong check” against foreign influence by birth on future Presidents and Commanders in Chief is another example of the use of Natural Law and influence of John Jay.
Here is an example letter from history dated 16 October 1787 from William Stephens Smith to John Jay in which he cites Vattel’s legal treatise, referring to a Volume, Chapter, and Section therein to justify the argument made in the letter. Smith cites Vattel because he knows John Jay is familiar with Vattel’s treatise and has a copy to refer to for said citation. Source: https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:35140
Below is another example regarding a letter George Washington wrote to John Jay thanking him for suggesting to him the legal treatise of Emer de Vattel (“the great Vattel”) to help George Washington in his dealings and negotiations with Spain and Great Britain. See: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/George-Washington-ltr-dtd-15Jul1789-to-John-Jay-regarding-great-Vattel-treatise-in-dealing-with-Spain.jpg
Read the rest here.
A copy of Vatel, from a library, was found in G. Washington’s effects.
In colonial times, the jus soli was the rule of law as John Adams applied it in the Case of Mr. Smith. Actually, Ramsey, the plaintiff, was correct that Smith was NOT eligible as he never became a U.S. citizen.
The Case of Mr. Smith
Ramsay’s Petition in the Case of Mr. Smith, May 22, 1789,[1] was a thorough analysis of by what mechanisms a person became a U.S. citizen. #1, if I recall, was ‘by birth or inheritance.’ It was based on his nine-page Dissertation published in 1789.
The constitution was ratified one year and one week later. The 1790 Act and Article II made it clear, and U.S. law for the next 108-years, that the land/soil no longer conferred citizenship but was inherited, by blood, from the father. The only exception was the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, relying on place of birth because the fathers had no national subjection–they were stateless.
France also switch to the law of jus sanguinis. This was mentioned, but dismissed by the Wong Kim Ark court.
“The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code “appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe — de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne — according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth.” 1 Demolombe Cours de Code Napoleon (4th ed.) no. 146. Wong Kim Ark, Page 169 U. S. 667
Our ‘leaders’ remain ignorant. One of the most respected legislators and attorneys in congress, Ted Cruz, remains oblivious and/or silent on the fact that his ‘citizenship at birth’ was retroactive, post nati, by statute, when his mother met requirements of repatriation to the United States. Cruz’s father was Cuban, not a U.S. citizen.
‘Natural’ refers to natural law, the inheritance by blood succession, not a statute of man but of Nature’s Law.
Ilan Wurman | The Case Against Birthright Citizenship | NatCon 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ifpA77Jjuc
Read more comments and discussion about this article at: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4342999/posts
There IS no “guarantee of birthright citizenship” in our US Constitution, US Code, Staturory or Case law.
ONLY children of US Citizens, or those otherwise under the jurisdiction of our Constitution (those living in territories, on reservations, etc) NOT of a foreign country are born as US citizens..
This is SO simple it’s why the founders and congress left it alone; it wasn’t codified until the 1860’s AFTER the war between the states was settled.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” – 14th Amendment
Children born of parents who are NOT “subjects” (as in “subjects of the crown” – CITIZENS) of this country’s laws can NOT BE citizens themselves by “birthright.”.
That pesky little coordinating conjunction “and” certainly does confuse people, especially the semiliterate and agenda-driven lawyers and jurists today and for several decades past who haven’t understood a WORD of our US Constitution much less really read it in the context of its writing.
For reference: Coordinating Conjunctions
“And” is a coordinating conjunction used to join words, phrases, or clauses that are of equal importance and grammatical structure. It is one of the seven coordinating conjunctions in English, which can be remembered using the acronym FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So).
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (RIP) “The constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
Hello NormB:
You wrote: “In the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (RIP) “The constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”” That is a noteworthy remark by Scalia. I’d like to save the source. Would you tell me, and provide a link to the source, where and in what context Justice Scalia said that? Thank you in advance.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
A quick websearch for “antonin scalia the constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say ” gives several dozen instances where he is quoted as saying this, or words to that effect. Off the top of my head this is how I recall him at his “originalist” best.
Thank you. Just thought I’d ask you what link you used for that Scalia quote. Here is what I found in doing that search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=antonin+scalia+the+constitution+says+what+it+says+and+doesn%E2%80%99t+say+what+it+doesn%E2%80%99t+say
Here are some “Quotable Quotes” that I cite regarding citizenship kinds found in the U.S. Constitution: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/?s=quotable+quotes
Here is the link to my chart about Citizenship Kinds found in the U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
“The constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
No where does the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment thereto, say any person born or naturalized in the United States is a natural born citzen thereof.
Dittos and agreed.
The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf