Several people I’ve talked to have claimed Emmerich de Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, as a reference text for understanding different parts of the U.S. Constitution. This book is most commonly referenced when discussing the citizenship requirements for President of the United States, so I decided to do some research on the topic for myself. And, of course, to share it with you.
As I said, I usually see Vattel brought up in reference to the qualification for President of the United States, specifically about the definition of a “natural born citizen”.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
According to The Law of Nations this is because:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The Law of Nations, Article 212
So we need to ask the question: Is The Law of Nations a legally binding reference for determining the meaning of words in the Constitution? To answer this, we must look at three things: Is The Law of Nations referred to in the Constitution? Was it referenced during the debates about the Constitution? And finally, is there a simpler explanation of the term “natural born citizen”?
Is The Law of Nations referred to in the Constitution?
I have read and studied the Constitution for many years, and I have never seen the book The Law of Nations referred to in the document. To be fair, I have never seen any other text directly referred to in the Constitution. Some have claimed that it appears in Article I, Section 8.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10
This is most often supported by the fact that the term Law of Nations is a proper noun, since it is capitalized in the original text. Does that mean the authors were referring to Vattel’s book?
Even Vattel refers to the “law of nations” as the rights and obligations of sovereign states.
The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
The Law of Nations, Article 11
It seems the term “law of nations” was commonly used at the time to describe the set of laws, both natural and those established by treaty, between sovereign states. This is reinforced by the context of the clause being crimes committed outside of the United States itself. Based on the use of capitalization in the Constitution as a whole, that language here does not appear to refer to a specific document.
Was The Law of Nation referenced during the debates about the Constitution?
Next, I searched the debates of the Continental Congress. My search included all of the records of the congress from 1774 through 1789, both for the terms “law of nations” and “Vattel”. What I found was the most predominate usage of the term “law of nations” was in reference to international law. I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattel’s book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. However, none of these references are related to the qualification for President or the term “natural born citizen”.
What I did find was a committee report of a list of books to be used by Congress. The Law of Nations was included, although it was mis-titled Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations. But is that the only reference?
Vattel says that for a person to be natural born, they have to be born on U.S soil to two U.S. citizens. But Blackstone, another resource for the debates, says only the father has to be a citizen (or subject, since Blackstone was writing about British law), regardless of the place of birth.
So, while Vattel’s definition may have been what our Founding Fathers considered when they wrote the Constitution, there is no proof of that fact. And with other definitions coming from other sources we do know were used, it’s hardly a slam-dunk that Vattel is the standard we should be using.
Is there a simpler explanation of the term “natural born citizen”?
Assuming the simplest answer is usually the best, I then looked for that simple answer to our question. Both Vattel and Noah Webster (whose dictionary I use as a reference document) agree that a natural born citizen is also a native citizen.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The Law of Nations, Article 212
2. A native; an original inhabitant.
Natural – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.
Native – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
If “native” means “conferred by birth”, then it can be inferred that a “natural born citizen” is one who is a citizen at birth as opposed to one being granted citizenship later in life.
Conclusion
Is the definition of “natural born citizen” from The Law of Nations legally binding on the Constitution? While it is true Vattel was read by some of the delegates who debated the Constitution, and was occasionally referenced, there is no evidence that his book was considered to be definitive in any sense of the word. The Law of Nations was included in a list of books proper for the use of Congress, but I find no evidence that it was referenced in the debates about the qualifications for President. In fact, other resources include different definitions for the term.
With no solid definition of the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, and with differing definitions in possible supporting references, we are left with only one way to define the term: Natural law. Since natural laws are, by definition, laws so obvious they don’t need to be written down, I believe the best definition of the term “natural born citizen” is the simplest: That of a child who is a citizen at birth.
To be a citizen at birth, one must be a child of a parent or parents who are citizens of the United States. I see no requirement that the child be born on U.S. soil. This is supported by the debates around the 14th Amendment recognizing not only geography but jurisdiction as being necessary to citizenship. Therefore, the standard we should use for qualification for President is a person who was born a citizen, not one who received their citizenship later in life.
If you have any evidence that Vattel’s Law of Nations was used as a standard when Congress debated the citizenship requirements, please put it in the comments below. While I have done quite a bit of study on this, it is certainly possible I missed something. But if you want me to change my mind, it must be real evidence, not supposition or simply what someone else has said. If your evidence is good, I may even have you on the podcast to show off your work.
