The Unchanging Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’: A Constitutional Perspective

This definition was not only well-known but was the only source available at the time that offered such a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a “natural-born citizen.” The Founding Fathers, including figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, frequently referenced Vattel’s work when framing the Constitution. This is further evidenced by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington, where he stressed the necessity of ensuring that only a “Natural Born Citizen” could hold the office of President to prevent foreign influence.

Moreover, Vattel’s influence extended beyond the drafting of the Constitution and into the judicial interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has referenced Vattel’s work in dozens of rulings to define key constitutional principles and terms. For example:

• Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The Supreme Court referenced Vattel to articulate principles of state sovereignty and the law of nations, which were foundational in determining the relationship between states and the federal government.
• The Paquete Habana (1900): This case relied on The Law of Nations to affirm that international law is part of U.S. law, emphasizing the relevance of Vattel’s principles in the American legal system.
• Ware v. Hylton (1796): Vattel’s views on treaties and international obligations were cited, underscoring his influence on how the Supreme Court interpreted treaty obligations under the Constitution.
• Talbot v. Janson (1795): The Court used Vattel’s definitions of citizenship and allegiance to resolve questions of dual nationality and expatriation.

These cases demonstrate that the principles set forth in The Law of Nations were not merely theoretical but were actively applied by the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution and guide legal decisions.

To further support the argument that the term “natural born citizen” has consistently been understood within the framework set forth by Vattel, it’s essential to highlight that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this interpretation in key rulings. Specifically, the Court has applied the term “natural born citizen” exclusively to individuals born in the country to parents who are citizens thereof, aligning directly with Vattel’s definition as stated in The Law of Nations.

Fast forward to the present day, and we encounter a shift in interpretation. Modern discourse often suggests that being born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship, suffices to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” This reinterpretation diverges from the original intent and understanding of the Founding Fathers. It overlooks the significance placed on lineage and the transmission of citizenship through parentage.

It’s important to note that while William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) defined “natural-born subjects” based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), the American Founders were consciously distancing themselves from the English monarchical system. They sought to establish a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, free from the hereditary and territorial notions of allegiance inherent in a monarchy. Therefore, they favored Vattel’s jus sanguinis (right of blood) approach, which emphasized citizenship through parentage, aligning more closely with the ideals of a self-determining republic.

For example, some contemporary sources, such as the Cornell Law School’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” misinterpret the term and even misquote the Supreme Court, pushing a narrative that distorts the historical definition. This modern reinterpretation suggests that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient for natural-born status, contradicting the stringent requirements originally set by the Founding Fathers.