Isabella Carter
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase natural-born citizen. While the consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, there is no universally accepted meaning for the term. The definition of natural-born citizen varies across different constitutions, with some requiring citizenship since birth, physical birth within the country's territory, or citizenship of one or both parents at the time of birth. In the United States, the eligibility requirements for holding the office of President or Vice President include being a natural-born citizen, which has been the subject of various interpretations and debates over time.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Place of Birth | Within the country or within American territories |
| Parents' Citizenship | Citizens of the country |
| Age | 35 years or above |
| Residence | Resident of the country for a specified number of years |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The consensus on the meaning of natural born citizen
The consensus on the meaning of "natural-born citizen" has evolved over time and is still contested. The US Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase "natural-born Citizen," and various interpretations have been offered.
Historically, the concept of "natural-born citizen" was tied to the idea of preventing foreign influence in government. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, suggested that the requirement was meant to "cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners" and prevent "corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections." Early interpretations of the phrase focused on birthplace and parental citizenship. Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel, in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case, quoted Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise "The Law of Nations," which defined natural-born citizens as "those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
In the 19th century, common law and court decisions influenced the understanding of "natural-born citizen." Chief Justice Waite, in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case, acknowledged that the Constitution did not explicitly define the term but referred to common law, where "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." This definition distinguished natives or natural-born citizens from aliens or foreigners.
By the early 21st century, the consensus among constitutional and legal scholars, along with relevant case law, expanded the interpretation. They agreed that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, and the emerging consensus as of 2016 extended this to those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that citizenship depends on the place of birth, as well as recognizing the children of citizens born outside the country's jurisdiction as citizens.
However, the definition of "natural-born citizen" remains a subject of debate, with political partisans often defining it to suit their interests. Additionally, the original intent of the Constitution's framers, influenced by 18th-century English law and the British practice of the 1700s, adds complexity to the discussion. The framers were familiar with statutes that recognized children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire as "natural-born Subjects." This suggests that the concept of "natural-born citizen" may have had a broader scope than solely birth within the country's territory.
In summary, while there is a consensus that natural-born citizens include those born in the country, the precise definition remains open to interpretation, with historical context, legal scholarship, and political partisanship all influencing the understanding of this term.
George Mason: Constitution and Bill of Rights Shaper
You may want to see also
The original meaning of natural born citizen
The original meaning of "natural-born citizen" is a complex and contentious issue. The United States Constitution uses the phrase “natural-born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which outlines the eligibility requirements for the office of President. However, it does not explicitly define the term.
The lack of a clear definition has resulted in varying interpretations over time. Some scholars and legal experts argue that a "natural-born citizen" refers to an individual born within the territory of the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship. This interpretation aligns with the idea that citizenship is primarily determined by the place of birth.
On the other hand, others have suggested that the term "natural-born citizen" implies that an individual's parents are citizens of the country in question. This interpretation draws on the concept of "allegiance," where citizenship is not only about birthright but also about the loyalty and ties to a nation.
The historical context and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution provide some insight into the original meaning. The inclusion of the "natural-born Citizen" clause was influenced by a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, to George Washington. In this letter, Jay suggested the need to prevent "Foreigners" from holding the highest offices in the nation and to safeguard against "corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections." This indicates that the Framers intended to protect the nation from foreign influence and ensure loyalty and commitment to the interests of the United States.
Additionally, it is important to consider the legal traditions and statutes that existed during the time the Constitution was drafted. The Framers were familiar with English law and the laws of the British Empire, which recognized children born abroad to subjects of the Crown as "natural-born Subjects." These laws and their interpretations likely influenced the Framers' understanding of the term "natural-born citizen."
In summary, while there is no universally accepted definition, the original meaning of "natural-born citizen" in the context of the US Constitution likely referred to individuals born within the territory of the United States or those with strong ties and allegiance to the nation, with the intention of preventing foreign influence in key leadership positions.
Blackstone's Influence on the Framers of the Constitution
You may want to see also
The 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is a cornerstone of American civil rights, ensuring due process and equal protection under the law to all persons. It states that "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." This is known as birthright citizenship.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the children and descendants of formerly enslaved people and free Black residents who had not previously been considered citizens. It also serves to integrate the first generation born in the US quickly into American society, making it more cohesive. Birthright citizenship also makes it easier for citizens to prove their citizenship, as a birth certificate is sufficient proof.
The 14th Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This has traditionally been interpreted to exclude the children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to US laws.
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to grant citizenship to anyone born on US territory, regardless of their parent's immigration status. This was confirmed by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clarified that children born in the US to immigrant parents are citizens. However, in recent years, there have been attempts to restrict birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for these children, but a federal judge temporarily blocked the order. Experts in immigration and nationality law argue that the president does not have the authority to change citizenship rules.
Citing a Constitution: Reference Page Style
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The natural born citizen clause in other constitutions
The natural-born citizen clause is a common requirement for presidential candidates in many countries. Here are some examples of how the clause is interpreted in other constitutions:
Uruguay
Article 151 of the Uruguayan Constitution establishes that the President must be a natural-born citizen of the country or have been born to at least one Uruguayan citizen if born abroad. The President must also be at least 35 years old and be registered in the National Civic Registry.
Venezuela
Articles 227 and 229 of the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela require that the President be a Venezuelan citizen by birth and possess no other nationality.
Angola
Article 110 of the 2010 Angolan Constitution provides that natural-born Angolan citizens over the age of 35 who have resided in the country for the last 10 years and enjoy full civil and political rights are eligible to become President.
Ghana
According to Chapter 8, Article 62 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, a person must be a citizen of Ghana by birth to be eligible for election as President.
Philippines
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states in Article VI, Section 3 that no person may be elected President unless they are a natural-born citizen of the country.
Costa Rica
The Constitution of Costa Rica, in Article 131, stipulates that the President and Vice Presidents of the Republic must be Costa Rican by birth and citizens in exercise.
Honduras
The Honduran Constitution requires that candidates for the presidency be natural-born Honduran citizens.
Mexico
The Mexican Constitution sets out that presidential candidates must be natural-born citizens of Mexico, with at least one parent who is also a natural-born Mexican citizen. The candidate must be at least 35 years old and have resided in Mexico for a minimum of 20 years, including the year preceding the election. Additionally, they should not have held certain government positions in the six months before the election.
While the specific requirements vary, the natural-born citizen clause is a common feature in the constitutions of many countries, shaping the eligibility criteria for their highest elected offices.
Andrew Johnson's Impeachment: Testing Constitutional Limits
You may want to see also
The interpretation of natural born citizen by law professionals
The interpretation of "natural-born citizen" by law professionals has varied over time. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the phrase "natural-born Citizen", which has led to various opinions and interpretations by legal scholars and professionals.
One interpretation of "natural-born citizen" is based on the concept of birthright citizenship or jus soli, which asserts that individuals born within the territory of the United States are considered natural-born citizens. This interpretation is supported by early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars and is also reflected in the Naturalization Act of 1790. This act provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens." The Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark also affirmed that individuals born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens, regardless of parental citizenship.
However, there are other interpretations that consider the citizenship of parents. Some legal professionals, such as Alexander Porter Morse, argued that only children of citizens should be considered natural-born citizens. This interpretation aligns with the English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise, "The Law of Nations," quoted by Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. According to this definition, "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
The interpretation of "natural-born citizen" has also been influenced by the purpose of the clause in the Constitution. Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, explained that the clause aimed to prevent "ambitious foreigners" from holding the office of the president and to safeguard against "corrupt interferences of foreign governments" or influence in executive elections. This interpretation suggests that the clause was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence and ensure loyalty to the United States.
In modern times, the eligibility requirements for the presidency have been a subject of debate, with some candidates facing scrutiny over their place of birth. The interpretation of the "natural-born citizen" clause has been flexible, with the U.S. Senate unanimously agreeing that Senator John McCain, born in Arizona before its statehood, and Governor George Romney, born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents, were both eligible for the presidency.
In summary, the interpretation of "natural-born citizen" by law professionals has evolved and continues to be a subject of discussion. While birth within the United States is a significant factor, the citizenship of parents and the intention to protect against foreign influence also play a role in shaping the understanding of this constitutional clause.
Private Businesses and Discrimination: Constitutional Limits?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a "natural-born citizen".
There is no universally accepted definition of the term "natural-born citizen". The U.S. Constitution does not define the term, and various opinions have been offered over time. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars is that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States.
In 1857, Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel quoted an English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's treatise "The Law of Nations", defining natural-born citizens as "those born in the country of parents who are citizens". In 1875, Chief Justice Waite stated that the Constitution does not define who shall be natural-born citizens, but at common law, it was understood that children born in a country of citizen parents became citizens themselves upon birth.
Yes, there have been various interpretations over time. William Rawle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania, defined a natural-born citizen as every person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. On the other hand, Alexander Porter Morse, a lawyer, considered that only a child of citizens should be allowed to run for president, interpreting the term "natural-born citizen" more narrowly.
Yes, in some countries, the requirement to be a "natural-born citizen" extends beyond the presidency. For example, in the United States, the vice president must also be a natural-born citizen. In other countries, such as Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras, the president and vice president must be citizens by birth.
