Eleanor Finch
The U.S. Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, although it is one of the eligibility requirements for holding the office of president or vice president. 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, as well as those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship. The Constitution’s definition of “natural born” is derived from 18th-century English law, which was the basis of the legal system of the British Empire, of which the framers of the Constitution were a part.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition of "natural born citizen" | The definition is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. |
| Citizenship requirement for president | Only a "natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. |
| Citizenship requirement for vice president | The 12th Amendment extended the requirement to the vice president. |
| Determining citizenship | Citizenship is generally determined by place of birth, but children of citizens born outside the U.S. are also citizens. |
| Excluded individuals | Those born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents may not be considered citizens. |
| Historical context | The Constitution's "natural born" definition is derived from 18th-century English law. |
| Interpretation | Political partisans often interpret "natural born" to suit their preferences. |
| Global perspective | Other countries like Argentina, Costa Rica, and the Philippines also have similar "natural-born citizen" requirements for their presidents. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Constitution does not define natural-born citizen in words
- Political partisans manipulate the definition to suit themselves
- The definition is rooted in 18th-century English law
- The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship but has limitations
- Other nations' constitutions have varying eligibility requirements
The Constitution does not define natural-born citizen in words
The U.S. Constitution does not define the phrase "natural-born citizen" in words, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its exact meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. This interpretation draws on 18th-century English law, which was the basis for the American Founders' understanding of the term.
The Constitution's use of the phrase "natural-born citizen" is found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which lays out the qualifications for the office of President:
> 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The 12th Amendment, adopted in 1804, clarified that the "natural born" requirement also applied to the vice president. The "natural-born citizen" clause was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence in its sensitive foreign and military policies.
While the Constitution does not explicitly define "natural-born citizen," there are several interpretations and historical contexts that inform our understanding of the term. One interpretation is that "natural-born citizens" are those born in the country to parents who are citizens, as quoted by Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of the term in 18th-century English law.
Another interpretation, offered by William Rawle, the former U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania, defined a natural-born citizen as "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens." This definition, provided in an 1825 treatise, suggests that the focus is on the place of birth rather than the citizenship of parents.
The lack of a clear definition in the Constitution has allowed for political partisans to define "natural-born citizen" to suit their own purposes, particularly in relation to presidential candidates. For example, President Chester Alan Arthur (served 1881-1885) was accused of being born in Canada and thus not a natural-born citizen. Similarly, Senator John McCain faced questions due to being born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone. These controversies highlight the ongoing debate and evolving understanding of the term "natural-born citizen."
Prisoners' Rights: What Constitutional Protections Apply?
You may want to see also
Political partisans manipulate the definition to suit themselves
The U.S. Constitution states that only a "natural-born citizen" is eligible to be president. However, it does not define the term "natural-born citizen". This lack of a clear definition has allowed political partisans to manipulate the eligibility requirements for their preferred candidates.
Throughout history, political partisans have accused opposing candidates of not being "natural-born citizens", thereby disqualifying them from the presidential race. For example, opponents of President Chester Alan Arthur alleged that he was born in Canada and, therefore, not a natural-born citizen. Similarly, Senator John McCain faced questions about his eligibility because he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone. In 2016, opponents of Senator Ted Cruz pointed out that he was born in Canada, despite having an American mother.
On the other hand, when it comes to their preferred candidates, political partisans tend to use a more flexible definition of "natural-born citizen". For instance, in 2016, the media promoted the idea that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen, which would include those born to American citizens abroad. This definition benefited Senator Ted Cruz, whose mother was an American citizen, despite his birth in Canada.
The manipulation of the "natural-born citizen" definition by political partisans reflects a broader issue with the understanding of legal terms in the Constitution. Many of the terms used in the Constitution, such as "habeas corpus" and "privileges and immunities", were derived from 18th-century English law and may have had different meanings than their common usage today. As a result, even legal scholars and law professors have made mistakes in interpreting the Constitution's original meaning.
To truly understand the definition of "natural-born citizen", it is necessary to delve into the legal sources and historical context from which the Constitution emerged. This includes examining 17th and 18th-century English court decisions and parliamentary statutes, as well as understanding the concept of "allegiance", which was tied to the idea of citizenship at the time.
Understanding Partnership Membership: Earnings Interest Explained
You may want to see also
The definition is rooted in 18th-century English law
The United States Constitution does not define the phrase "natural-born citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its exact meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, along with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, subject to exceptions.
The definition of "natural-born citizen" is rooted in 18th-century English law. The concept of birthright citizenship, or jus soli, was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, or the "right of blood", which was associated with the French Civil Code of 1804. Jus soli, or the "right of soil", refers to the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship. This was the predominant rule in the Americas, which may be explained by the establishment of lenient laws by past European colonial powers to attract immigrants and displace native populations.
The "natural-born" concept was tied to a related and complicated legal term, "allegiance". This was common knowledge among the American Founders, but most people writing about the Constitution today do not have the necessary background for researching 18th-century English law. The Status of Children Born Abroad Act 1350 allowed children born abroad to two parents who were subjects to be subjects themselves. Later, the British Nationality Act 1772 made general provision for assuming natural-born allegiance (citizenship) if the father alone were British. The rationale of natural-born citizenship was that citizenship was granted to individuals born in the dominion of the British Empire, regardless of the status of their parents.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 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". This act is the only one to have used the term, which was omitted by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The leading case, Lynch v. Clarke of 1844, indicated that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship.
War Declaration: Constitution's End?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship but has limitations
The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, addresses citizenship in the United States. The amendment 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."
However, it is important to note that the 14th Amendment has limitations and does not extend citizenship to everyone born within the United States. The amendment specifically excludes from birthright citizenship those who are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This includes children born to diplomatic representatives of foreign states, children born to alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. Additionally, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas is generally determined by the citizenship of their parents.
The 14th Amendment also does not provide a definition of "natural-born citizen," a term used in the Constitution to establish eligibility requirements for holding the office of President or Vice President. The Constitution's use of this term without a clear definition has led to various interpretations over time. While there is a consensus that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, there are exceptions and complexities, especially when it comes to children born outside the jurisdiction of the United States to American citizens.
To understand the Constitution's definition of "natural-born citizen," scholars have had to look beyond the Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers. Instead, they must study 18th-century English law, including a series of 17th and 18th-century English court decisions and parliamentary statutes. This is because the concept of "natural-born" in the Constitution derives from English law, and the framers of the Constitution were familiar with the legal terms and their meanings in English law.
In conclusion, while the 14th Amendment addresses citizenship and provides a basis for understanding who is a citizen of the United States, it does have limitations and does not define the term "natural-born citizen," which has been a subject of debate and interpretation.
John Adams' Influence on the Constitution
You may want to see also
Other nations' constitutions have varying eligibility requirements
The U.S. Constitution does not define the phrase "natural-born citizen", and the Supreme Court has never ruled on its precise meaning. The eligibility requirements for becoming the head of state vary across different nations.
For example, the Venezuelan Constitution requires that, to become President, one must be a Venezuelan citizen by birth and possess no other nationality. Similarly, the Liberian Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen of Liberia, and citizenship is limited to "persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent". The Mexican Constitution also requires that the candidate be a natural-born citizen of Mexico, with at least one parent who is a natural-born citizen of Mexico. Additionally, the candidate must be at least 35 years old and have resided in Mexico for at least 20 years.
In contrast, the Dominican Constitution provides that the President must be a Dominican by origin or birth, while the Honduran Constitution requires candidates to be natural-born Hondurans. The Ghanaian Constitution requires that the President be a citizen of Ghana by birth, while the Uruguayan Constitution allows for the President to be a natural-born citizen or born to an Uruguayan citizen if born abroad.
While the specific requirements vary, many countries specify citizenship by birth as a requirement to hold certain offices, often described using the "natural-born" phraseology.
Separation of Powers: Are They in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A natural-born citizen is a person who was born in a country and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.
No, the U.S. Constitution does not define the term "natural-born Citizen".
The term "natural-born Citizen" is not defined in the U.S. Constitution because the framers of the Constitution were familiar with the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, which states that all children born in a country of parents who are its citizens become citizens themselves upon birth.
The status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements for holding the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
Yes, there are some exceptions to the rule that natural-born citizens must be born in the country. For example, children born to citizens of the United States outside of its jurisdiction are also considered natural-born citizens. Additionally, as of 2016, there was a consensus emerging that those who are born elsewhere but meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship are also considered natural-born citizens.
