Natural Born Citizens and USSC Docket 20-1503
The Post & Email by Joseph DeMaio 5/16/2021
WHO IS -- AND IS NOT -- A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"? When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for your humble servant to respond to comments in greater detail than allowed in the designated section of P&E posts, a longer post is required. Such is the case with this offering regarding assertions made by those who reject the likely application of Book I, Ch. 19, § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise, “Le Droit des Gens” or “The Law of Nations,” to the proper interpretation of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the “natural born Citizen” restriction for the presidency. Here we go again.
Valued P&E readers, that which follows is somewhat convoluted, but given that the issues are less than simple, a more complex explanation is necessitated. Translation (more on that topic later…): keep some of your favorite caffeinated beverages handy. Your humble servant has his can of Dr Pepper nearby. In addition, it is assumed that readers are already possessed of some historical background relating to the issues, since complete treatment of all the interstices of the matter would make this offering much longer. For that, see all of your servant’s prior P&E posts on the topic.
Ready? Let us begin.In response to this
post addressing what a hypothetical amicus curiae brief in the “Laity v. Harris” matter now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court might look like, several commenters have pointed out various “errors” and purported anomalies in the article. The substantive, as opposed to tertiary (has the CRS been contacted?) comments have been chiefly directed at the assertion that in the 1760 London edition English translation of de Vattel’s tome, in §212, the French word “indigènes” was translated as “natural born citizens.”
Specifically, commenter Becker asserts (comment posted May 9, 2021 at 4:50 PM) that in all editions of the English translated work prior to 1797, the word remained “indigènes” and did not appear as the “natural born citizens” English translation until the 1797 London edition. That comment is correct, at least when referencing the London and Dublin editions, noted in the same comment. However, the record is unclear as to whether other editions from other translators making the “natural born citizen” translation existed prior to July 25, 1787, the date of John Jay’s “hint” letter to George Washington. For purposes of the following discussion, however, that uncertainty is immaterial.
Regardless, the veiled suggestion is made that, because when John Jay composed his “hint” letter to General Washington in 1787, no edition of the Vattel tome translated the French word “indigènes” as “natural born citizens,” Jay could not have relied on the treatise when he used that very term in his letter to General Washington. Whether Jay relied on other translations is unknown.
That uncertainty aside, for purposes of discussion, it will be assumed that the comment positing that the “natural born citizens” translation did not appear until the 1797 London edition is not inaccurate. It is noteworthy, however, that this same point was argued, using essentially the same logic, in the 2011 version of the Congressional Research Service Report R42097, discussed here, and was equally unavailing there. But more on that report later.
Your humble servant confesses that the likely source for the reference to the 1760 translation as including – perhaps, but perhaps not – the words “natural born citizens” was the citation to the work found in the Wikipedia entry found here. Memo to readers (and your humble servant): exercise caution when sourcing facts to “open source” websites, i.e., sites which can be edited by virtually anyone, with or without expertise or supervision.
That said, Wikipedia can be a source of useful information, as well as disinformation. In this instance, it may be both, as evidenced by footnote 1 therein, referencing the 1758 original French version of the treatise, as well as the text discussing who came into possession of copies of the original version of the tome: Founder Benjamin Franklin.
More:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/05/16/natural-born-citizens-and-ussc-docket-20-1503/
