Mario Apuzzo – David Ramsey defines “Natural Born Citizen”

Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines

“natural born Citizen” in 1789
“CITIZENSHIP…BELONGS TO NONE BUT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN OF
CITIZENS”

Author: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Date: April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Historian David Ramsay (1749-1815)

(Apr. 2, 2010) — In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,”1 it is important to find any
authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers
themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding
period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a
“natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote “A
Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen,” (1789) a
very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815)2 was an American physician, patriot, and
historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in
1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress
Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary
of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being
personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the
Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes); in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two
volumes;3 in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two
volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected
in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of
the American Revolution (1789)…” (Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay
and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2, May 1984). “During the progress of the
Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his
fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified
him for the task….”4

Page 1 of 4
Mario Apuzzo – David Ramsey defines “Natural Born Citizen”

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an
extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the
advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the
wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and
spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,”
Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him
to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined
the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said
concerning the children born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is the
inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is
confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He
added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans,
who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character
in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that
citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since
the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a
“natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a
highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential
Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.”
Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the
time, would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen,” and
he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents.
In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but
rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emmerich de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-
born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential The Law of
Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations
and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).5 We can reasonably assume that
the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way
that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from
the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the
Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of
the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous
source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural
born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country
to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by
subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12
U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons,
cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to
“fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v.
Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House
Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the

Page 2 of 4
Mario Apuzzo – David Ramsey defines “Natural Born Citizen”

Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was
intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects
of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the
children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or
the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of
foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68
(1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402
(same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same
definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the
same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in
the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the
precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause,
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham (R-Ohio), U.S. Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

The two-citizen-parent requirement6 would have followed from the common law that
provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words,
the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to
two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status,
which under our Constitution only the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military
(and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or
her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all
“natural born Citizens” are “Citizens of the United States” but not all “Citizens of the United
States” are “natural born Citizens.” It was only through both parents being citizens that the
child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance7 to the United States which the
Framers required the President and Commander-in-Chief to have.

Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in
1961 (wherever that may have been), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and
father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality
Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the
United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC8. Prior
to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor became a United States citizen.
Being temporarily in the United States only for the purpose of study and with the intent to
return to Kenya, his father did not intend, nor did he ever become, a legal resident or
immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States”9 under the 14th Amendment or a
Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii)10. But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear
presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of
citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born
Citizen,” for upon Obama’s birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by
descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks
the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which
only the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at

Page 3 of 4
Mario Apuzzo – David Ramsey defines “Natural Born Citizen”

the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and
Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of
natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is
constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military.11 Just
as a naturalized citizen, who, despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to
the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power,
Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

EndNotes:

1 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftit
le=1870&Itemid=28

4 http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/

5 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

6 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

7 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

8 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html

9 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

10 http://www.scribd.com/doc/27679281/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-
Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100301-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5

11 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

###

Page 4 of 4